Skip to main content

We here at DailyKos criticize Democratic office-holders and office-seekers all the time, but rarely have I seen the level of how dare you question? hostility as with the response to the front-paged stories offering skepticism towards Caroline Kennedy's pursuit of a Senatorial appointment.

I don't intend to psychoanalyze the motives of those who remain so defensive of Ms. Kennedy's candidacy, but I think I can shed some light as to what's animating the skeptics. Take a look at this set of last names, and tell me what legacies come to mind:

Bruenjes, Clawson, Dworkin, Gardner, Houle, Jaikumar, Lange, Lazzaro, Lewison, Logothesis, McCarter, McIntyre, Morrill, Moulitsas, Sumner, van der Linden, Waldman

In all likelihood, the only one you even recognize is Moulitsas.  They're not the names of titans of industry, or of former Senators.  These names don't guarantee that your phone calls to important figures will be returned, they won't get you a table at a restaurant that purports to be booked, they don't get you invited to movie premieres or gallery openings ... they really don't open any doors at all.

Except right here.  These are the last names of the front-pagers at DailyKos, and the thing that everyone here has in common is that they earned their spots here.  Markos built this site -- and he invited the people who write for the front page -- and you come here to read them -- because of their ideas, and how well they express them.  It wasn't wealthy investors or big names that built this site -- it was their writing and your interest in it.

[Trust me: the only thing that having a last name of "Bonin" entitles you to in life is years of puerile name-calling based on the tumescent condition.]

I haven't asked any of them about this -- and for all I know, some of them support Kennedy's bid -- but I suspect that to the extent there's skepticism or even hostility, it's because the whole ethos of this site is meritocracy, and it extends to the blogosphere as a whole.  There's nothing inherent in names like "Joshua Micah Marshall" or "Glenn Greenwald" that compels you to read them; you visit their sites because they're good.  On the other hand, the Internet is littered with sites and projects backed by big money and big names (remember Unity08?), but which collapsed because of lack of interest.

The Kennedy candidacy, on its face, stands in opposition to this ethos.  So far, it has been about leveraging the power of a name into a Senate seat without the effort of a two-year campaign, and without the type of legislative or executive experience that one generally brings to the table before running for the Senate.

Not every current Senator was in public life before -- Bob Bennett was the businessman and the son of a Senator; Chuck Hagel a businessman; Orrin Hatch an attorney; Herb Kohl a wealthy state party chair; and, of course, Ted Kennedy himself, who was just a recent UVa Law graduate (and manager of his brother's 1958 reelection bid) and Suffolk County assistant district attorney when he first ran in 1962.  Going back further, look at 34-year-old Bill Bradley, running for the Senate right after NBA career ended or trial lawyer John Edwards, neither of whom had sought office before.

But at least they all campaigned for it.  They built statewide organizations, addressed the press and citizen concerns (including competing interest groups within the party), and persuaded voters over time that they had the judgment and policy depth to be elected.  The appointment process admittedly short-circuits that vetting for all of Sen. Clinton's potential replacements, but at least others in the field have gone through it once.

This leads to another point worth making: simply believing the right things isn't enough to be a successful candidate or a successful Senator.  On both facets, the example of Hillary Clinton is illustrative.  Her listening tour and subsequent 2000 campaign reflected a level of gravitas (and warmth) that we hadn't really seen before, and as a freshman Senator she had to work her ass off before gaining any respect or influence; her celebrity purchased nothing there.

It could well be that over the next few weeks, Ms. Kennedy's public efforts and excellent diaries like this will help fill in the picture, and demonstrate the depth of (hopefully correct) policy views and toughness in her life experience that would make Caroline Kennedy a progressive, effective interim Senator and a successful 2010 and 2012 candidate for the office whom we can all support and admire.

But while willing and listening, I'm not convinced yet.  If she wants my support, she has to earn it in her own right, in her own name.  In the meantime, y'all can decide whether you agree with my analysis -- based on the quality of my writing, and not who I am.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:35 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  for the record (14+ / 0-)

    My views on Caroline.

    On the one hand, I agree with Adam B about the meritocracy. OTOH, in this case, someone's going to be appointed regardless of what I think.

    In any case, the voters will decide sooner or later; I just prefer sooner.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:27:13 AM PST

    •  they really let *anyone* write there now. :) (19+ / 0-)

      And I do mean anyone.

      The only thing that makes me reluctant about a caretaker is New York state's particular history with vicious intra-Dem primaries (and the availability of fusion lines) impeding November successes, but there's examples on both sides of that.

    •  I honestly don't get Adam's point (73+ / 0-)

      This site is popular and well-known at least as much for the community here as for the quality of the front-page voices.  We all say what we think, and while we often agree we also often enthusiastically disagree.

      While I don't especially care what Markos, Adam, or anyone else thinks about the merits of Caroline Kennedy's possible nomination to the Senate, I did find the weird obsession with the subject strange and disturbing.  

      This is a time when we need to come together to learn how to become an effective pressure group to influence the Obama administration and the Congress.  This issue is a distraction when we need to be focusing on priorities and tactics as a movement.  Markos has written books about this, and I know the other people who write for the front page get it.  So why aren't these questions getting more attention, and Caroline Kennedy less?

      Our long national nightmare is almost over. Congratulations and blessings to all.

      by Dallasdoc on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:45:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  some people here really are interested in (19+ / 0-)

        politics. Not movements, tactics or such. Others are interested in issues and that which gets issues implemented and highlighted (i.e., movements and tactics and such) and don't really care for politics (though they won't always admit it.)   ;-)

        What's interesting about this place is the mix. What's amusing (usually) is the "I never read the FP" or the "I never read the diaries" comments people occasionally make. How can you not read both?

        Anyway, as a native NYer, I'm interested in Caroline, and I am especially interested in making sure her story is not conflated with Palin's by the media.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:55:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is certainly a diversity of opinion here! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That is what makes us people powered kossacks, aside from mainstream issues like our uniform support of LGBTQ marital rights (that CKS shares), we are a diverse group here as kossacks, joined together unanimously only in our support of LGBTQ marital rights, the fighting spirit of our feisty leader mr. kos and the ferocity in which we all state our views on a myriad of issues we hold diversely on every issue but our priority of LGBTQ marital rights.

          People power = LGBTQ marital rights = OBAMA '08!

          by kevinspa on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:04:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nail on the head, DemFromCT... (5+ / 0-)

          Pol-i-tic  adj. characterized by shrewdness in managing, contriving, or dealing

          Honestly. This is what turned me off and induced apathy to politics when I turned voting age in the late `70's. Listening to politicians campaign and observing their actions only reinforced that.

          I'm looking for a public servant, not someone who after taking office sees it as I've seen while in our military. I heard over and over ad nauseam "rank has its privileges." So many of our public office holders see their position more as a public rank than what it is truly meant to be - serving the public. The title "Public Servant" should be displayed constantly throughout the offices, corridors and committee halls of all of our public buildings in this nation.

          This is why I don't take Kos' and Adam's rhetoric of politicking and campaigning for office roots out the core goals of the individual. Sure, it brings to light many things and exposes the person to the public, but in too many cases what it exposes is bullshit and the public gobbles it up to be the god's honest truth instead of what it really is.

          The reason I like Caroline is because she hasn't had to bs her way through life for most of her 51 years and we've seen her the way she actually is. As a few here have pointed out in the comments, with the exception of her brother, Jr., whose ideals were exposed in his magazine venture, the Kennedy's have pretty much walked a straight line of progressive values. Much of what Caroline stands for is out there for public scrutiny.

        •  Is she qualified to be the senator? yes she is (5+ / 0-)

          There are only a few qualifications to become/be appointed a senator of the USA.
          So the question is not  if she has the  qualifications, but is she is the best for the position .

          Millions of people thought Obama was the best of the options avilable and many others felt he was an unknown risk or worse a travesty. Was he the best person in the country for the job who knows, but we live in a democracy and hence he is the president.

          It gets a little tricky because everyone have their own yardstick to measure and this is compounded by peoples' personal likes, dislikes and in some cases frank hatred.

          Back to CK
          Is she qualified? certainly
          Is she the the best person? who knows
          Will she be a great senator? time will prove.
          will she be progressive she seems to be but then most of Obama's appointments are not true progressives either.
          Does she have a so called political track record? NO!

          No, and I am so glad she does not have one. I am so not excited by the professional politicians. They are more often  corrupt than not.
          Why can't we have people from  various normal walks of life hold public offices? Who says it has to be one among the scounrels?
          I would like people from all walks (a la Chu) for public offices.

          From what we Know CK has been a good person, has done some limited work in the public domain, she is not corrupt.From what I have seen and read of her, she has decent progressive ideals and like Obama, has the charisma.
          So I say give her a chance like many americans I know took a chance with Obama (unlike me who was for Obama, I know many who did take the leap of faith).
          I am a bit surprised the venom that is spread against her. I don't know what the leaders of this site has against her. Maybe there is a Cumo camp here who knows

          American dream is a myth!

          by brown american on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:06:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  there isn't venom (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, Jacob Bartle, okuzaone

            and "the leaders of this site" don't have anything against her, other than disliking a leg up on name alone. That's not venom, just a widely held opinion, based on small d democratic ideals. Were this a primary, no problemo.

            My own opinion can be found in the very first comment, or here. There's nothing venomous about it, or the comments I've made throughout the thread about Caroline.

            I agree with your assessment about her, and suspect it is shared by many New Yorkers. I don't think she should assume she has the job (so far, she does not seem to be assuming that) but I don't think the fact that this is an appointment disqualifies her, somehow.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  after reading (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alba, weebo

              hudreds of comments there is certainly venom against her and or her family. You can not deny the fact that there has been hatred (towards her, her family or dynasties or what ever personal dislikes are) from some quarters.
              I did not say the venom came specifically from the leaders. But they have clearly stated their distaste for appointing CK. If there is venom in their souls let them be their own keepers.

              The most interesting thing about appointment is the irony that it is UNDEMOCRATIC!
              So we are trying to apply all our so called democratic ideals to a basically autocratic process.

              I do understand all the arguments against appointing her. some of them I agree and others i don't. among them
              I don't agree
              one should get a leg up or get selected because of the family name.
              but then I also don't agree that one has to have been elected before or be a professional pol to become a senator.
              I don't agree on appointments but then that's the law just like the reduntant electoral college.
              I agree one has to be appointed on merit but we don't agree on what the merit is. This is a partisan site so the yardsticks of merit will be slanted which i donot agree.
              I don't agree that it has to be a democrat but agree that it should be one to serve the interest of NY state.

              I am not a nyer, I was never a fan of the Kenneys,
              I am an independent interloper on this "democratic" site for years. But I am a proud progressive
              My hope for change was that we would do things differently and not stick to the same percentage game plan.
              Interestingly people who support her, claims that she is the freshness, that the leadership of this country needs ;while those who oppose, harp on the name factor and that she should not be handed it on a silver platter.

              The Gov has to pick one person and be it ck, cumo (dynasty too but have not heard  too many diaries about him here)or any other NYstate citizen, they all will have their fans and ditractors.It is autocratic and not democartic at all.

              But it is clear that the leaders of this site does not want CK to be appointed.
              Do they have a personal or collective candidate to be appointed?
              will they support CK if she stood for election in 2 years?
              Is the dislike because she is not  much of a  democratic pol ?
              will you call for the NY gov/law makers to call for a election(if that is legally possible)?

              Is their distaste for her(to be appointed) purely based on , as you claim here, on principles and idealism ?

              If so I tip my hat to you and hope I see the same intensity of idealism and not pure pragmatism or political jocking when it comes to issues that are important to the progressives and hot Obama's feet to fire in the coming years starting with looking at the criminal activities of the present adminstration.

              American dream is a myth!

              by brown american on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:33:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  um (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                brown american

                But it is clear that the leaders of this site does not want CK to be appointed.
                No, it's not clear at all. I don't like appointees who can call the gov and have a leg up, but if she's appointed, I will support her. At the same time, there's a dozen of us with a dozen opinions (let alone the thousands and thousands of regulars). And, like Obama, who was not our first choice, we're okay with who wins.

                Do they have a personal or collective candidate to be appointed?
                Nope. No consensus on that.

                will they support CK if she stood for election in 2 years?
                Probably, assuming she's a progressive Dem, and she's earned support.

                Is the dislike because she is not  much of a  democratic pol ?
                see above.

                will you call for the NY gov/law makers to call for a election(if that is legally possible)?
                Preferable in future, but not possible now. And thge expense is daunting.

                Is their distaste for her(to be appointed) purely based on , as you claim here, on principles and idealism ?
                Yes. If it were an election and not an appointment, no discussion.

                "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                by Greg Dworkin on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:22:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  clarify for me please (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Do you want ck appointed ? YES/ No/ I don't care.
                  (we are not talking about election)

                  If you DON"T want her appointed
                  It is because of one or more or all of the following
                  (please name the reasons)

                  1.leg up/calling up Gov issue

                  1. dynasty/name factor
                  1. lack of experience

                  4.more deserving people (if so who)
                  5 any other reason

                  I also  invite others especially theFPers to express their opinion. DemFromCT has made it clear that there is no collective thought on this.

                  American dream is a myth!

                  by brown american on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:07:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh my response would be (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't care oneway or other.

                    not because she is not good but she is as good as any.
                    Its the autocratic call of the GOV

                    I just felt people were too harh to her.

                    American dream is a myth!

                    by brown american on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:16:59 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  all the FPers who have posted that (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    npb7768, rnotrtoornotrtoo

                    I have noticed have expressed varying degrees of hostility to CK (Kos, Adam B, Brownsox, Jed L, and DemfromCt). It's definitely group action regardless of their claims to the contrary.

                    •  Very peculiar isn't it. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Extremely vague reasoning.
                      They're attacking the process, which is law.
                      And, they (Kos in particular) attack CKS's credibility as well as attacking her personally.

                      I've seen a few silly postings while I've been coming here regularly, but this, by far, is the most incredible attack I've witnessed.

                      •  really? (0+ / 0-)

                        Hmmm... let's see... there was the Nader flame wars, the Clinton-Obama primary, the Dean candidacy, fraud in Ohio, pie fight....

                        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                        by Greg Dworkin on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:03:33 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  hostility (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Adam B

                      I will support her if she is appointed, but I don't like special treatment. Since the qualification for Senator apparently includes the likes of Kyl and Inhofe, Caroline would be much better (and certainly much smarter). Most of my family still lives in NY and will vote for her, but has reservations about her appointment. The polls say a lot of NYers do. Interestingly, younger voters aren't sure which Kennedy she is (cousin, daughter, etc).

                      You call that hostile? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

                      It's definitely group action regardless of their claims to the contrary.

                      Bullshit conspiracy theory, and completely irrelevant to the discussion. I think you added it to stoke outrage because, well, we all know we're supposed to be outraged about something. it can't possibly be reasonable disagreement about politics because, well, that never happens.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:00:43 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  btw, in an interesting column (0+ / 0-)

                      Froma Harrup points out that if a famous person were appointed in 2002 in IL, Obama would be nowhere today.

                      Is she in the group? How about Chris Cillizza? How about the Buffalo News editorial board? Are they in on the fix?

                      The point is that lots of folks have issues with this appointment... in good faith. And many will support her if she gets it, regardless.

                      So chill.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:53:54 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  answers (0+ / 0-)

                    Do you want ck appointed ? YES/ No/ I don't care.

                    I want to see her earn it and work for it, and then I will be fine with it. That means more than calling the Gov. It means going out and meeting constituencies, and/or position papers, or something of substance. If she does that, I'm okay with it. Someone will be appointed.

                    So, it's 1-3 and what I wrote just above. I don't have a "more deserving people" I'd prefer, though I'd prefer other than a white male Senator.

                    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                    by Greg Dworkin on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:07:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I get it. (8+ / 0-)

        The level of hostility generated by some of the pro-CK folks here has been astounding.  I'm all for vigorous debate, but there's been something else going on here.  I've lost track of how many times I've been told that I hate CK and called all sorts of names simply because I said that I would prefer it if she ran in a Democratic primary in 2010 so that we could see what she's like in the electoral arena rather than simply appointing her now.  And I've also lost track of how many posts have questioned the motives of FPers who have written less than glowing diaries about her.

      •  I second you Ddoc. (32+ / 0-)

        I don't have a position on Caroline Kennedy.  What I did have a problem with is the level of hostility, anger, and even hatred leveled at her merely for throwing her hat in the ring.  And for the obsession being shown in opposing her on this site.  It makes absolutely not sense to me.  

        I have no problem with frontpagers or diarists opposing her.  And when they are able to come up with some valid reasons, I agree.  But when it's based on vapid, shallow reasoning and gets just downright nasty and mean, I start arguing.  Not with their conclusion, but with their means.

        •  Caretaker vs. Selected replacement (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jacob Bartle

          is a good process argument to be having, or at least I thought so.

          And then of course there is the idea that every state should fill Senate vacancies via special elections, as we do with House seats.

          But when you hear the belligerence brought on by the debate, it makes me believe we'll never get rid of the Electoral College.

          2010 US Senate races. Who's next to go? Vitter? McCain? Gregg?

          by Anderson Scooper on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then work in your state to change your state's (4+ / 0-)

            law if you don't have a special election to fill a vacancy.  We have to work with the rules we have in place and different states have different rules.

          •  Those may be good arguments but not when they (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, pollyusa, weebo, Dark Ranger

            are packaged as part of whether Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the NYS seat.

            The issue of governors appointing senators has been part of the fabric of our system since its beginning and very few states have moved away from it (and then primarily because of a party split in control of the legislature and the governor's office (e.g., in Massachusetts in 2004 when the Democratic legislature took away the Republican governor's right to appoint Kerry's successor in the event he was elected president)). Go back and look at history and you will see that there have been about 50 Senate appointees since 1960. This is in fact a very ordinary and commonplace occurrence in our political system.

            The same thing with the "caretaker" issue. Some governors have done it; others prefer a strong senator from the start. Again, there have been 4 appointments and in the past 3 years (1 caretaker, 3 real senators). I call no passion about the caretaker issue in the context of those 3 appointments and no drumbeat for an overhaul of the system. The least rational time to debate this issues is when a vacancy has occurred (or is about to occur as in the case of NYS) and NO DECISION-MAKER is even remotely interested considering a change in the system in NYS.

            If these were bona fide issues, they would be the subject of ongoing debate but the fact that they arise only in the case of this possible appointment does in fact raise questions as to how legit the points really are.

            That being said, I think that there are legit concerns about the appointments process (see Illinois) but I think that it is bogus to wrap it into the CK issue and to pretend that the rules can or will be changed in NYS in mid-process. That's not going to happen so it does seem fundamentally unfair to be attacking CK for a process that is not of her making.

        •  And I second you gustynpip (12+ / 0-)

          If one has something against Caroline (legitimately) then have at it.  But please give me some reasoning to SUPPORT another candidate, instead of just continually bashing Caroline.

          The incessant din of anti-Carolinism on the front page just starts to seem infantile.

          And that's coming from someone who's pretty infantile! ;o)

          Caretaker/Placeholder '08!

          by MacJimi on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  where is the (0+ / 0-)

          hostility, anger, and even hatred


      •  As compared with what, Rick Warren? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CParis, NellaSelim

        I did find the weird obsession with the subject strange and disturbing.  


        This issue is a distraction when we need to be focusing on priorities and tactics as a movement.

        I understand that Caroline Kennedy, a well known personality but  short of experience (as in nada) in elective politics experience wish to be appointed Senator will raise a bruhaha among many, you are right however that among so many important strategies and policies in need of urgent development the site devoted several FP diaries to the issue.

        My 1st question would have been what are the options to Kennedy? who would be a better progressive choice if any, on behalf of whom a the DK's community should try to influence the NY Gov's decision?

        "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by IamTheJudge on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Strategies and policies (0+ / 0-)

          in need of urgent development?  Does anyone seriously think that any strategies or policies developed here will be other than laughed off by the Dems in DC, that is if they even get enough attention to be scoffed at?

          This sig line is in foreclosure. For details on acquiring a credit default swap on this sig line, contact H. Paulson, Dept of the Treasury, c/o Goldman, Sachs

          by ActivistGuy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:20:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And the alternative? wait another 8 years? (0+ / 0-)

            progressives need to move the ball, push and push to influence policy, are we going to get legislation and initiatives just like we want it? most likely no, but as I said what are the options?

            "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

            by IamTheJudge on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:35:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  His point is that he's incredibly intellectually (8+ / 0-)

        dishonest, as he totally mischaracterizes the response as "how dare you question".

        •  I get that same thing. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, pollyusa, weebo, Dark Ranger

          "how dare you question" jumped out at me like a thrown stone.

          Look. My reaction to "how dare you question" is, how dare you presume I am closed minded to shut off substantive reasoning in the case against Caroline. No one here supporting Caroline's appointment, as much as I've observed in the comments, has said "how dare you" anything. What I'd like to see is some valid evidence to her not supporting the causes in which we all strive for.

      •  Good point that started an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        interesting line of debate, at least at the time I posted this comment.
        (Just in case insanity slips into it later)

    •  exactly! (9+ / 0-)

      This needs to never happen again, and a special election system must be installed.

      But in the meantime, these criticisms ignore the fact that someone will be appointed. The "yeah but Mario Cuomo and Kirstin Gillibrand earned it" is not much of a comeback. I'm more than willing for someone to entertain a case that has the full picture on any of these candidates... why you agree with Carolyn Maloney's voting record or stances or Cuomo's or whoever.

      But banning Caroline and leaving the door open seems pretty weak. IMO

      Does Harry Reid have a "plan" or is he just in some permanent live-in-the-moment state gone frighteningly wrong?

      by Nulwee on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly - where diary logic fails (10+ / 0-)

        Your point

        these criticisms ignore the fact that someone will be appointed.

        shows the major flaw in the diarist's point

        But at least they all campaigned for it.

        This diary should be exclusively aimed at the system of appointment rather than  any candidate who gets appointed, regardless of prominence of family name

        Whoever fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss gazes back into you. Nietzsche

        by snewp on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:10:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! And it is not the applicants' fault that (6+ / 0-)

          it is by appointment.  Obama raiding the Senate & House & Governorships for his super qualified cabinet was pretty much bound to cause replacement issues.  There is a certain amount of pressure to address gender and race diversity when naming the replacement as well, so replacing Hillary with a woman is a consideration in Caroline's favor.  Are there other women toiling in the political trenches that deserve consideration? Sure.  But being electable by having name recognition is also a political consideration whether you like it or not.

    •  At the founding of our democracy here in the US, (6+ / 0-)

      Senators were not directly elected by the voters, but were instead elected by state legislature until 1913 with the passage of the 13th Amendment. The process of governors appointing Senators to fill shortterm vacancies when incumbent Senator is no longer serving has been inpractice for a long time now.  So I am puzzled by the continuing attacks on the process.  The voters do eventually get to elect a new Senator when at next Congressional election cycle.  I think this certainly makes sense.  While I realize the Blagojevich affair reflects badly on the process of federal legislative appointments, I not sure that a direct election right after a national election is a practical option.

      Also, I have checked on Caroline Kennedy's past record to some extent and she seems to be fairly qualified. Here is an example:

      From 2002 through 2004 Kennedy worked as director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the the New York City Department of Education. The three-day-a week job paid her a salary of $1 and had the goal of raising private money for the New York City public schools.[15] In her capacity, she helped raise more than $65 million for the city’s public schools.[16][13] She currently serves as one of two vice chairs of the board of directors of The Fund for Public Schools, a public-private partnership founded in 2002 to attract private funding for public schools in New York City.

      She also holds many of our liberal positions including gay marriage rights.  One also has to realize that she has stayed out of the public limelight much to her mother's insistence given the history of he family.  She strikes me as fairly capable person.  I am willing to give her a chance.  Someone who has lived in New York City for the better part of her life should do well to represent New York's interests.

    •  The solution is to appoint MARIO Cuomo... (0+ / 0-)

      to serve for two years, at which point, Democratic voters can enjoy an epic primary battle between Caroline Kennedy and ANDREW Cuomo.

      The secret to a happy marriage: Say NO to drugs and YES to chores.

      by Jimdotz on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:13:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  d (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I 100% support Caroline Kennedy as the NY Senator.

      And yes,  she deserves because who she is, who her father was, and what her family has done for the Democratic Party.

      To not support her is a crime difficult to weigh.

      -4.13 -5.90. There is no one here who thinks like me. So lower or raise your expectations accordingly.

      by Polticalrecluse on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:34:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Monarchies are awesome! (4+ / 0-)

        Well, at least some people think so, I guess...

        To support her for what her family has done is nothing less than pining for monarchy. That's not bashing Caroline, it's bashing thinking like this.

      •  That (11+ / 0-)

        could be the most anti-democratic thing I've read all day.

        "It is a crime not to support this candidate, a crime difficult to weigh".

        "This candidate deserves support because of who her father was and what her family has done".

        Seriously, I get the arguments for Caroline. This, however, is ludicrous.

        I am aware of all internet traditions.

        by Arjun Jaikumar on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:00:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now I agree with you there. But Caroline Kennedy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is a practicing New York Attorney who has served a number of political causes for New York City including the public school district.

          •  she is not a practicing attorney (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stiela, carllaw, sethyeah, okuzaone

            She has a law license, reinstated about a week ago.  She has never, as far as anyone can tell, represented clients.

            •  The fact that she had a law license in the past.. (0+ / 0-)

              has had reinstated implies that she was at times active as an attorney.  She is also the member of the New York and D.C. bar associations.  As to who she has had as clients, why not ask her?  I assume given your position at Daily Kos that you would have the press credentials to request an interview.

            •  To be honest with you Adam, I feel like I am at (8+ / 0-)

              a party of cannibals right now. We are eating our own here.  We need a better focus or a new direction.  Tearing down Democrats and criticizing every decision each Democrat makes can't be our only goal on this website.

            •  Jesus H. Christ.... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pollyusa, Admiral Santa, alba, weebo

              Since when is being an attorney a qualifier for the Senate.   Hell fire, it is not a qualification to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court! (de jure, but granted by practice, that is effectively de facto) still it is not a Constitutional requirement. Scary as it is, I am qualified to be a Supreme!  Though not likely to be confirmed (whew!).

              I think discussion about Caroline Kennedy (who I think is acceptable, as are a few other people), and really anyone else who is possibly in the hopper is fine to a point, but a couple of little issues:

              1.  There is to date only an apparent vacancy looming, but it isn't official until the sitting Senator resigns.
              1.  The process is for the Governor to make the appointment to a term that ends with then next Congressional election (2010).  At that point there will be an election, and the people will speak.
              1. If Ms. Kennedy is appointed and IF or IF NOT she is elected in 2010, that is how the process works.  It is the rules in play and that is fine by me.

              Oh yeah, and what if a non-Kennedy who is (gasp) not an attorney is appointed.  The world won't stop.

              For my taste-and I know it has no standing for New York--she and several others are fully qualified and eminently qualified.

        •  To the dying day. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandy on Signal, alba, Rebecca74

          My language is animated.  What I'm saying is that the thought of NOT voting for Caroline Kennedy jolts my senses. It would have to me opposing her for that to happen.   I'd vote for the Kennedy over my most members of my own family.

          Kennedy Loyalty is intense, hence the word crime.  It feels like a crime.

          -4.13 -5.90. There is no one here who thinks like me. So lower or raise your expectations accordingly.

          by Polticalrecluse on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:18:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think the issue is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B, muckrakers

        To a lot of people, no one deserves a senate seat, or the presidency, or any elected position for anything except legitimatly winning an election.

        This is why we say people serve in positons.

        She deserves appreciaction and recognition for her work for Obama, and for the NY public schools. Given her personal background, she is certainly in a posision to become a serious candidate if she so chooses.

        Still, in the end, she is not entitled to a seat due to her own or her families actions. I am not a New Yorker, and can not say if she would or would not represent me well, but using an appointed possition to end-run around the standard process used to get involved in politics does not feel right to me.

        •  ???...That is the process when a Senate seat is.. (5+ / 0-)

          vacated!  She isn't making an end run period.  She is doing what has been done countless time.  Why should you or anyone hold this against her?

          •  Because (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jacob Bartle

            She could have chosen to start at a time where her path would have been to gain the support of the people she wished to represent, instead of asking one man.

            I'm not saying it is wrong or bad of her to do so, but it is less good then running.

            I'm not holding it against her, but I'm not marking it in her favor either.

            Honestly, this is not a big issue to me. I have a preference here, but I care more about the resolution of the 'Lizard People' ballot being wrong then about this one. This just happens to be my viceral reaction.

        •  By that statement... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ANYone who is appointed has end-runned the standard process.  I think that is wrong.

          If a vacancy occurs due to a senator's death, resignation, or expulsion, the 17th Amendment allows state legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a replacement to complete the term or to hold office until a special election can take place. There are a few exceptions to this rule. Some states require a special election to fill a vacancy. A few states require the governor to appoint a replacement of the same political party as the previous incumbent. Typically, a replacement holds office until the next scheduled statewide election.

          So, appointment is a special circumstance predicated by a vacancy in the office of Senate.  By these arguments, here are several of the 181 total appointees who would be disqualified as "end-runners" because they were appointed who have served noble or not so noble careers in the Senate since 1913:

          Charles McNary (ran for VP later)
          Harry Byrd, Sr.
          James Eastland
          John Foster Dulles
          Walter Mondale (second service)
          Harry Byrd, Jr.
          Ted (dare I say "tubes") Stevens  
          Pierre Salinger
          Howard Metzenbaum
          George Mitchell
          Daniel Akaka
          Lincoln Chafee
          Lisa Murkowski

          I say that it is fair and democratic to follow the rules and they are no more nor no less Senators than those elected to full 6-year terms.  The people still get to vote in the next election. What is the big deal?  So it gives someone an advantage in incumbency..   so what?  It is still fair.

    •  yeah, well, I'm a little tired of the obsession (8+ / 0-)

      I wouldn't say "how dare you" to anyone, but with all the stuff that's going on in the world, this issue strikes me as not that important given the circumstances.

      Bottom line.....someone's going to get this plum. There will be no special election (Paterson may be able to call one, I don't know).

      Anyway, the governor should review her qualifications. If he finds her to be an appropriate pick, so be it. If not, don't pick her.

      She'd be a good dem vote, probably progressive from what I can tell, so her appointment wouldn't bother me. I don't look gift horses in the mouth and refuse to get my faux overalls in a wad over this. More concerned with the economy, war, environment than whether I should hate Kennedy due to her parentage or laud her for it.

      Now that you've printed DH's identity (yes I know it's on an inside page) can we steal it and order Chihuahua underwear in his name and post the receipts?

      Just wondering.

  •  Too much attention to this subject. (12+ / 0-)

    Big deal. Someone will "rent" the seat for 2 years before running for it.

  •  "how dare you question?" (39+ / 0-)

    Isn't our response.  It's when Caroline is being attacked for completely asinine things like occasionally not voting in a Democratic primary.  If someone has some valid criticism of her ability to serve as US Senator, I'm happy to hear it.

    Get your daily dose of netroots based talking points over at: Strategy '08.

    by smash artist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:37:45 AM PST

  •  I say appoint someone who will not run in 2010 (5+ / 0-)

    and let her campaign for the seat like anyone else. I know the governor has the right to appoint, but I am not a big fan of appointments for senate.

    Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

    by jdw112 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:38:14 AM PST

  •  SO? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollyusa, weebo

    IS IT JAN. 20th 2009? Yet?

    by surfdog on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:38:21 AM PST

  •  Meritocracy IS "brand name" (10+ / 0-)

    But if you position the "merit" of Caroline Kennedy's appointment as increasing our likelihood of holding the seat in 2010 through fundraising and her name recognition, then there is a legitimate merit to her appointment outside of her own worths/ideas/values.

    So I'm not sure arguing on the practical benefits of appointing Kennedy, even if its true she hasn't earned it in any legit way, isn't its own form of meritocracy based on the fact the Senate is a collaborative body in which majority values increase power.

    •  In other words ... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stiela, Mia Dolan, ryan81, joehoevah

      ... it might be okay if she's a less-effective (or less-progressive) interim Senator, as long as she's more likely to win in 2010/2012?

      •  Hey Adam (4+ / 0-)

        I support the premise of this diary, and my comments demonstrate that, but the diary you cite was anything but "excellent," except maybe in comparison with the other pro-Caroline diaries.

        It did not deliver any "populist" case for Caroline's appointment, because there IS no "populist" case for her. The fanboy diarist couldn't back up his title, and didn't even try.

        Her appointment to this Senate seat would be the rankest possible elitism, favoritism, insiderism, and cronyism. Maybe that's what a lot of New Yorkers want. Maybe Caroline would be an excellent U.S. Senator. Stranger things have happened.  

        But before the fact, we don't know that, which is why I agree with all the points in this diary.

        "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

        by Ivan on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:59:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  less progressive... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pollyusa, zinger99, gustynpip, alba, weebo

        I'd like to see evidence for this, honestly. This choice isn't made in a vacuum. There are other New York politicians who would presumably want this seat.

        Many of them are Wall Street Democrats who will be decidedly less progressive than Kennedy. And many of the more progressive options have already taken themselves out of the running.

        If you're going to criticize the process, wonderful. But over the last couple weeks, Kos has gone into the realm of personal attacks against someone who played a pretty big role in helping Obama win the nomination.

        The "policy" and "political" criticisms are based on some pretty flimsy evidence. And, yeah, some Democrats aren't too happy to see a Kennedy mocked.

        •  I agree -- we need more evidence. (0+ / 0-)

          There are some issues in which she's more progressive than most -- gay marriage.  Others -- Wall St regulation -- where she's indicated she'll follow the lead of the Schumer/Dodd wing of the party, which is somewhat discouraging, though it's unclear whether there's an aggressive type like Spitzer in the mix who'd be better.  

          •  Yikes, bad example... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pollyusa, alba, weebo

            I know what you meant, but it does bring up a point: We need to be sure our candidates don't have any "skeletons."

            A placeholder is by definition going to be ineffective, and I get the feeling that New York would rather have a Senator with national prominence than a lame duck. Just my two cents.

            So if we're going to compare her, I think it'd be far more productive to compare her to the other available options.

            If we're going to criticize the process, let's not blame her for the way vacant Senate seats are filled.

            It's highly unlikely that anyone with a chance would run against her in a Democratic primary in New York. Given what we know about her positions on the issues so far, it's reasonable to assume that she'll be close to Ted Kennedy's positions.

            Yes, there is a piece of legacy to this, but there are politics in play here. She would seem to be the strongest candidate in 2010 and 2012.

      •  You know Adam B, if I'd seen any (7+ / 0-)

        discussion of how and why she would be less effective or less progressive than the available alternatives, this question would make some sense.  But in all those anti-Caroline diaries, I never have.  Not once.  Please.  I'm begging you.  If there is some evidence of that, give it to us.  Please.  I truly want to understand the reason for the desperate dislike of her.  I just haven't seen anything to explain it and I'm flummoxed.  Please explain it there actually is an explanation.

        •  we don't have any evidence, period (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stiela, blueness, Jacob Bartle, carllaw

          We're just starting to see written responses to questionaires.  We're not seeing much pro or con, and folks are projecting what they want into the vacuum.

          I don't dislike her.  I'm skeptical.  There's a difference.

          •  Be skeptical. I have no problem with that. In (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zinger99, weebo

            fact, I'll support it.  But what has been exhibited on this site has had little to do with skepticism and instead consisted of a whole lot of hostility.  

          •  Harry Reid at YearlyKos 2006 (7+ / 0-)

            Adam, I was at Yearly Kos 2006 in Vegas, and Harry Reid got up and promised if we helped make him Senate Majority Leader, he'd open investigations into the Iraq War and prosecute illegal wiretapping and torture.  How'd that work out?

            Not saying you don't have some good points about Kennedy, but seriously, how much do we know about anyone we elect?  It's always a crap-shoot, but Caroline does come with a long career in the semi-public spotlight, charity work, public school work, work on the Obama campaign, and a fundraising network.  

            Would we really know less about her than, say, some state congressperson who cast a few small-time votes?

          •  not a valid response - you have devoted (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Sandy on Signal

            so much energy to criticizing her and dismissing every argument that is made on her behalf yet you refuse to make a case for any candidate.

        •  You're asking him to prove a negative... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B

          Maybe there is evidence and maybe there isn't of her progressive or un-progressive bonafides, but the point is she is running for one of the highest levels of elected office and it would seem to me we should expect the candidate to prove their value to the electorate through more than a name. Any lesser expectation doesn't do justice to the concept of a gov't for the people and by the people. The burden is on her to show value, especially to the people she claims to represent. I have seen no clear articulation of her principles and governing philosophy and in the absence of any electoral history we are left to guess based upon anecdotal activities. Many reasonable people have been chewed up by the DC machine before, if I was a NYer I'd want to see evidence that she has the moxie to see it through with principle.

          •  Actually, I'm asking for the alternative... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, alba, weebo

            I'm asking who she would be less progressive than. Certainly, if this is based on a genuine desire to appoint a clearly effective and progressive Senator, they have someone in mind?

            •  There may not be one at the moment.... (0+ / 0-)

              But regardless we need to provide pressure in hopes of shaping what candidates are on the table. If we (progressives or even more generally citizens) just rollover instantly because we don't see a better alternative we give up our most powerful bargaining chip, our vote. At a minimum it would be nice to peer behind the curtain of the elite on this one and hear just what CK is about. We don't have that now and if I was still a NY voter I'd be scared to death I'd be voting for a black box in which I'm not sure what I might find. If she realizes she has to take a strong stand on one core progressive issue as a result of our concerns we've achieved something. If we rollover simply because she was a friend of Obama we fail.

              Her qualifications are pretty mainstream from what I can see and although she was a big Obama supporter I'm more concerned about having a strong progressive force in the senate to counteract his not so progressive tendencies on many important issues (at least in his cabinet). We already have a senate that lacks any spine, we need strong advocates for progressive values who are grounded in the needs of the people and not the top of pyramid. I've met plenty of nice, grounded rich people that I also greatly disagree with on policy and would never chose as my senator.

              •  Oh my gosh. You're actually saying there might (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pollyusa, alba, weebo

                not be a better alternative, but we need to attack and vilify a good Dem who helped get our President elect elected because . . .  Well, I'm not really sure why.  Because it will somehow send a signal to someone else about how they need to behave?

                Arghhhh.  I've got to be living in a alternate universe.  This kind of reasoning just can't be happening on Dkos.

                •  Where did you get that from? (0+ / 0-)

                  My point is the current lack of an alternative should not muzzle our concerns and reservations, because we should use our actions to influence and motivate our policy makers to make better decisions. Our actions vis a vis politicians and our vote can help shape their actions. If CK knows she won't get my vote by default but must proves she cares about the issues I care about, maybe she will consider her positions or display some leadership on the issues. If I say I'll unconditionally support her because there isn't a better alternative what message does that send? As long as you have the money and influence you're safe in your seat because you'll out fund raise the better alternative and scare them away.

                  I'm not vilifying CK or attacking her and most of the comments haven't said anything to this affect. They merely talked about what they view as the injustice of the process which favors someone with money and the right last name. I'm not sure what you are so concerned about. If CK can't take the heat she should stick with her current occupations, this type of criticism is lightweight at best. Disagreement is healthy and I thought it was what gave us an upper hand over conservatives who seem a lot less welcoming of dissent and disagreement

            •  a much better 'proven' alternative (0+ / 0-)

              is Liz Holtzman, I pasted some 'wiki' stuff about her..(as did some others) on another diary so I dont really think Liz Holtzman's creds as a "staunch liberal" have any real doubters, and she 'has' a record of serving House of Representatives '73-'81 and along with getting known Nazis' deported, to stuff like

              In 1978 she secured an extension of the deadline for state legislatures to ratify the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. (House Joint Resolution No. 638 was approved by the 95th Congress.)

                  there is a lot there just on 'wiki' but at the bottom I particularly like this        

              On January 11, 2006 The Nation published her essay calling for the impeachment of U.S. President George W. Bush for authorizing "the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."[18] She expanded on her arguments for impeaching President Bush in a 2006 book coauthored with Cynthia L. Cooper, The impeachment of George W. Bush: a practical guide for concerned citizens.[18] In June 2008, Holtzman published a commentary on the action of U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in introducing articles of impeachment against President Bush on June 9, 2008[19].

  •  Well said, Adam n/t (7+ / 0-)

    No day but today--Obama '08

    by someotherguy86 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:39:26 AM PST

  •  it's not just about being in public life (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stiela, blue jersey mom, Mia Dolan, TomP

    But rather having held a job, any job, in your lifetime.
    Most of us start with minimum wage jobs in high school/college, go to school, get that entry-level job, and work our way up from there.
    I'm not for anyone having US Senator as their first job, dem or repub.

  •  Yawn. (21+ / 0-)

    Is this all you've got?  Caroline Kennedy shouldn't be Senator because she hasn't earned a place on the front page of DK?

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." --H.L. Mencken

    by JCWilmore on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:40:09 AM PST

    •  Reports are coming out now that Paterson (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is seriously looking at other people, like Andrew Cuomo and Rep Steve Israel and others.

      Why do I think we've fallen into the ga-ga media trap here about Caroline ?? I don't think she's going to be picked.

      •  And it would be nice ... (0+ / 0-)
        to read about those other people here, and get some idea about what will influence Paterson in making the pick.

        But no. Here it's only Caroline Caroline Caroline. Every day. Every day. Every day.

  •  I actually spend more time reading the user (14+ / 0-)

    submissions personally, as far as your point goes, whoever gets the seat will not have "earned" it, it's an appointment to an elected seat, so that comparison is garbage to begin with. This wouldn't even be a front page issue as often as it is if her name weren't Kennedy, even though some very similar situations have occured in the consideration of others not named Kennedy (Jarret previously being floated for Ill. is one in particualr and recent).

  •  Just Say 'NO!'... to aristocracy? (6+ / 0-)
  •  the Kennedys and Shrivers (5+ / 0-)

    were personal friends of my family.  Howard Kennedy and Jay Shriver.

    It was amazing the restaurants we could get into and the special rooms that were reserved for the Kennedy/Shriver party when we had dinner with them.

    There was always a hustle and bustle when we arrived, and a LOT of disappointment shortly after.

  •  Excellent post, Adam. (10+ / 0-)

    One of your best.

    A democracy means some level of egalitarianism and careers open to talents.

    Caroline Kennedy may be great on issues for all we know, but there are others also great on issues.  The message we send by appointing her to the Senate because of her father and uncles undermines much that Barack Obama has achived in showing that someone not of the manor born can be elected president.

    "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

    by TomP on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:41:14 AM PST

    •  You and I seldom disagree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, alba, mnguy66

      But, on this one..maybe. As I understand this, one of the reasons that she is getting looked at at all is because of her ability to raise the kind of money that is needed to take the seat, work at the job, and mount a solid campaign in two short years.

      It's in the interest of the Democratic Party to keep that seat in the D column and some feel that she can do just that.

      That alone would not qualify her in my eyes, nor should it in others. On the other hand, I do believe that as a Kennedy, Caroline probably had politics in her baby bottle. I'm sure that she has the knowledge and the advice to be effective.

      Both of my Senators are in the examples that AdamB gave in his post. Hatch and Bennett. While I have little good to say about either, Bennett is the better.

      I don't know if it's because he grew up in a political home, but he is smarter and more thoughtful than Hatch. Also he doesn't hog the spot-light like Stormin' Orrin.

      Just a thought.

      There still are two Americas. I live in the other one.

      by high uintas on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But of we only look at money raising, there (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B, high uintas, carllaw

        still are others.  She's not the only one who can keep the seat in Democratic hands.

        Many others also have knowledge.

        In the end, her qualifications are that JFK was her father, RFK an uncle, and Teddy Kennedy an uncle.

        She has never run for office.  There are thouasands who have been more involved in New York fighting for change.

        I have nothing against her, but starting at the top just seems not to be the thing we believe in.

        Had she run for state rep or state senator and fought in the trenches for years, it would be fine.

        "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

        by TomP on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:28:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm really on the fence here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I see some very incompetent people in both Houses and their length of service doesnt' seem to be a qualifier or the campaigns that they have participated in.

          On earning it, the counter arguement would be the  deals made to get there. Some arrive so weighed down by IOUs that they never get around to actually representing their constituents.

          On arriving as a political virgin, some can be so ignorant that they spend all their time on the learning curve.

          When it comes to CK I doubt that either would be an issue. She doesn't need to scratch backs and as I said before, she grew up in politics.

          In the end, it will really be up to the people of NY in two years if she is appointed. As a Utahn, she can one of our two Senator's seats in my dreams.

          There still are two Americas. I live in the other one.

          by high uintas on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed: AB, one of your best. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Hooray. Moi Aussi (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Somewhere in Texas a Village is missing its Idiot.

    by RoddieH on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:41:40 AM PST

  •  All of the replacements should be out in the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    open.  Obama's, Biden's and Clinton's.

    This is a really sucky start that they are all tainted by the possibility of favoritism and scandal.

    •  Delaware's appointing a caretaker (7+ / 0-)

      Ted Kaufmann, Biden's longtime chief of staff and a Lecturer in Law (the Senate always needs one) at Duke Law School.  In two years, they can have their Beau Biden v. John Carney primary.

      •  A person picked as a placeholder is likely to be (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pollyusa, Mary Julia, alba

        a moderate, not a strong political voice. Why should we want that in New York, when we can have a person with strongly progressive positions, who will support Obama and be commited to furthering his programs?  

        THe next two years are incredibly important in terms of Obama's success, and the future direction of our nation. Obama needs Senators who will be strong allies. Caroline Kennedy would be that.

        For her progressive positions, see THe Field's diary, here.  She supports the Employee Free Choice Act, supports marriage equality, opposed the Iraq war from the start, is a strong defender of the Bill of Rights, etc.

        Furthermore, The Field describes her as having played "a central role" in Ted Kennedy's poliltical organization for years, which implies considerable knowledge of politics and particularly of the Senate. She won't be coming in cold.  Her role in Obama's campaign makes clear that he trusts her political judgement, and I consider that a good endorsement as well.

        If the governor of New York can find someone equally or more progressive, who has something approaching the same approval rating from the people of New York, then he should appoint that person. Otherwise he should appoint Caroline Kennedy, because she's the best person available at this particular time, IN SPITE OF her name.

        •  I don't follow. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You did notice that I linked to Al's piece in the main post, right?

          But the idea that a caretaker would be more moderate is based on what, exactly?

          •  The important thing about a caretaker (0+ / 0-)

            is that they're not there long. Two years really isn't that long.

          •  The whole point of a placeholder is that they (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            are not building their own career or reputation; they are holding the space, possibly for an "heir apparent," but in this case for a primary contest among Democrats. The placeholder's job is to be essentiall neutral in that upcoming contest, not to represent any faction within the party. I would be very surprised if a strongly progrssive candidate were picked in a place-holder capacity.

  •  Soooo... (6+ / 0-)

    the subtitle of your very meritorious post might well read: why someone with that THAT last name won't be ALLOWED to earn it by us over here in the blogosphere.


    Look, the governor has to appoint somebody.  I'd rather see someone from upstate.  And, no, Andrew Cuomo is not from upstate.  So, let's see how she campaigns.  She just started.

  •  Do I read (9+ / 0-)

    front page diaries?  


    Do I then say oh, so that is how I am supposed to think!


    And I certainly hope no one here expects us to.  I do not give up thinking to parrot what someone else tells me to think.  I am not a Palinite.  I am a Democrat and I think.

    I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.

    by crazyshirley2100 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:42:45 AM PST

  •  a president not a king (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Maned Pensator, Bodhisatva

    a senate not a house of lords.

    The only way i'd support Caroline Kennedy is if she was appointed
    with the Express sworn statement that she doesn't want to campaign
    in 2010 and that this is solely to put all the primary candidates on
    an equal footing until 2010.

    It's okay to appoint a party stalwart to chairwarm for a permanent candidate,
    but, let's not create a new dynasty

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM PST

    •  The myth of the placeholder caretaker (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, ssgbryan, Miss Blue, alba, drache

      Any person so appointed would have all the perks of incumbency for 2 years!  Does anyone seriously believe that this so-called placeholder would not use those structural advantages (free mailing to constitutents, access to campaign contributions, etc.,) to win the 2010 election as well, especially when those advantages would in all likelihood give the person the leg up on the competition be it from other dems or the reps in the general.

      •  we have some very naive people posting on this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, nathguy

        board, I'm afraid. Either that or they are throwing up strawmen to conceal their true agenda . .

      •  the De senator (0+ / 0-)

        But we’re not talking about Joe Biden in this case. This life story also describes Biden’s longtime chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, the newest senator from Delaware. Kaufman was appointed Monday by Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner as a caretaker senator for the next two years.

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:39:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Please tell me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollyusa, Miss Blue, alba

    most of the NY Dem members of Congress that people have pushed for the NY-Sen seat have been in their seats for decades.  To call having one of these people selected for the seat as the best or truest embodiment of democracy becuse they have been "elected" is ridiculous.  Come on, most of these Dem reps have not faced a serious challenger to their seat since they were first elected.  And to believe that they will not shift, alter, make nuanced shifts in their existing positions once they leave the safe hamlet of their gerrymandered district to face votes in up-state NY is naive.

  •  But here's the thing: (14+ / 0-)

    The front page hasn't focused on, for example, Biden's replacement. Kos suggests that he gets a pass because he won't run in 2010 and that's a good thing. Well, no: installing a lame duck from the get-go doesn't serve Delaware very well.

    The celebrity fixation seems to lie within Kos, mare than within the dKos community or New York electorate.

  •  Old man here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan, TomP

    I remember the Kennedy arrogance from a long time ago.  Gene McCaerthy begged Bobby to run against LBJ, and he refused until he saw that Clean Gene did very well in the N Hampshire primary.  Then Bobby thought it was his birthright to kick out McCarthy.  Hell no then, hell no now.  I remain clean for Gene--those were the days my friend(s).

  •  What??? It must be a slow news day. She is (6+ / 0-)


  •  Well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stiela, TomP, BlueGenes

    In all likelihood, the only one you even recognize is Moulitsas.

    Actually, a coworker of mine has one of those other last names.

    And this story summarizes, in a nutshell, what pisses me off about the whole thing. Haven't we had eight years of people being nominated for their last names and pocketbooks?

    If we're going to promote government by competence, maybe some meritocracy is a good thing.

    And I don't care what gender, color, belief system, hell, species the people we elect are. All I care about, in short, is whether or not they want to drown government in a bathtub.

    Because, like P.J. O'Rourke forgot he said, in a democracy the government is us.

    We lost because nobody in their right mind would trust us to run a government. -- Achance, Redstate, regarding GOP losses in 2008.

    by Moody Loner on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM PST

    •  Via Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) (6+ / 0-)


      Also, Rep. José Serrano, of The Bronx, a far-left Democrat and native of Puerto Rico, blasted Democrats, including some of Paterson's own advisers, for saying Kennedy should be picked because she can raise campaign cash.

      "The whole notion of everyone suggesting she can raise more money than anyone else and that's her strength wipes everyone else off the table because others can't raise that kind of money," Serrano said.

      "If the governor makes a decision solely based on who can raise the most money, then some communities - the poor and minority communities - will never be able to have a member of their community represented," continued Serrano.

  •  My hostility (8+ / 0-)

    comes from the fact that some have discounted her candidacy because of who she is rather than going point by point to show that whoever she is she is not likely to be a good Senator or that there is someone else interested in the job who would do it better.

    Call her candidate X. What is it about candidate X's values, experience, abilities that you don't like. Say why candidate Y would be a better choice. If the problem is that you don't know anything about candidate X then say that.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM PST

  •  But she's a mother! (15+ / 0-)

    My biggest beef with Caroline is that several times now I have heard her list her qualifications and high on the list (and definitely first in at least one case) was "being a mother." Sorry, if that's a qualification, there are millions of other New Yorkers equally qualified.

    There's nothing wrong with being a mother, but it is not a qualification for being a member of the Senate!!!!

    Eli Stephens
    Left I on the News

    by elishastephens on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM PST

  •  Funny... I saw the "how dare you" attitude (38+ / 0-)

    coming from Kennedy's detractors, not her defenders.  As in "How dare you try to get appointed when in fact Clinton's replacement should be... well... er... appointed."  

    The fact is that the next senator is to appointed in accordance with NYS law, and will face re-election when the time comes. If people have a problem with this then they should be trying to change the system to a special election system, not simply cry out that somebody else deserves the appointment.  

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:45:24 AM PST

  •  Thanks, Adam n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue jersey mom, Mia Dolan, TomP, carllaw

    -8.50, -7.64 "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that there was within me an invincible summer." - Camus

    by croyal on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:45:46 AM PST

  •  Frankly I'm surprised people care so much... (10+ / 0-)

    ...firstly because it's just Caroline Kennedy, and either way the idea of having strong opinions for or against her seems ludicrous and artificial, and secondly because we have absolutely no say in who gets appointed to the Senate seat. People here might as well get really worked up about who the next Pope will be while the cardinals are in the conclave.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:46:24 AM PST

  •  Adam, with all due respect . . . (29+ / 0-)

    I think you're leaving yourself open for some back and forthing.

    One person Markos, plucks whom he likes for the FP of Daily Kos. It's his choice.

    One person, David Paterson, plucks whom he likes for the Senate seat. It's his choice.

    We may not agree with Mr. Moulitsas or Mr. Paterson but tough shit.

    On the subject on Caroline Kennedy. There is solid reason to appoint her. If she's not up to the task she'll be primaried and someone else will rise from the ashes. I for one, can live with her, but I wish she would really face the media, I think she'll do very well. She's no Sarah Palin.

  •  would Bennett, Hagel, Hatch, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miss Blue, alba

    Kohl, Kennedy, Bradley, et al have turned down a chance to be appointed? Or Purposefully ignored it in favor of running in a primary and general election in two years? Many of Kennedy's critics aren't all that logical in their reasoning.

  •  standing ovation! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mia Dolan

    /me applauds AdamB

  •  Sexism? Suppose she was JFK Junior? You won't be (4+ / 0-)

    writing this, I betcha.

  •  Caroline for President (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LI Mike, weebo

    I'll support her or anyone who doesn't oppose the right of gays to marry.

    I'll bet SHE wouldn't have Rick Warren speak at her inauguration.

    (Although she might have the Pope - which would be just as bad :) )

    We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

    by tiponeill on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM PST

  •  I'm so confused (12+ / 0-)

    Why can't we just read what her accomplishments are and determine whether she'd be good or not???

    EVERYONE either loves or hates her for her names and I'm going to get blasted for this, but I think you're all foolish.

    READ a list of her education, work, experience and possibly her community service without the name, and I'll bet most of you front pagers and other diarists would have respect for her.

    I don't live in NY, I don't have a say and I don't CARE what they want as long as it's what the people of NY want.  But a lot Kennedys have done a lot of great things and I couldn't care less about the name but the accomplishments stand out.

    "... a dream that became a reality and spread throughout the stars" - Captain Kirk (Whom Gods Destroy)

    by PixieThis on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM PST

  •  To be fair, as a base rule I alway believe and a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stiela, BlueGenes

    accept 100% anything that a person named Adam writes. So of course I agree with you.

    But seriously, I don't know enough about Caroline Kennedy, to know whether she has earned an appointment as interim Senator. A name and a few correct ideas is not enough to persuade me.

    All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies.- Bokonon

    by ryan81 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM PST

  •  The Governor of NY Appoints Frontpagers? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annalivia, JCWilmore, alba, cybrestrike

    I had no idea that the NY State constitution had so much to do with the Kos frontpager selection . . .

    We do what we must because we can.

    by EthanPeretz on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:50:09 AM PST

  •  Seriously, dkos, wtf? (20+ / 0-)

    The economy is crumbling, the Bush administration is doing its best to fuck us over on its way out, Blagojevich tried to sell Obama's Senate seat, we're not even close to a real national health policy, and the two most important issues here are the NY Senate seat and Rick Warren?

    Guide to my comments: When in doubt, assume sarcasm.

    by Gray on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM PST

    •  I've given up trying to understand the kos (14+ / 0-)

      obsession on Kennedy, seriously.

      And the beat/obsession goes on.

    •  We are kossacks. (0+ / 0-)

      The only thing we support, fight for and lay our lives on the line for more than the general fight of politics is for LGBTQ marital rights. That is our priority and what unifies as as kossacks.

      People power = LGBTQ marital rights = OBAMA '08!

      by kevinspa on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pollyusa, Gray

        I'm all for full equal rights for all citizens, but I didn't have any clue over the last few years that said marital rights was the priority of the site.

        Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

        by drbloodaxe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not far unlimited. (0+ / 0-)

          Of course, I believe it some limitation to marital rights; I won't list those as they are very offensive to our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. But, there is no question that as a kossack my priority is LGBTQ marital rights. I do echo your credo of "full equal rights for all citizens" with the understanding that what that means is LGBTQ marital rights and, of course, shouldn't be taken literally but solely for our purposes as kossacks.

          People power = LGBTQ marital rights = OBAMA '08!

          by kevinspa on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:25:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Furthermore (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollyusa, Gray, alba, weebo

      this site is about electing Democrats. So, why is kos and frontpagers doing their darndest to criticize and ridicule one of our own? It is not exactly like she is a Joe Lieberman. The time spent in going after Caroline could have been spent on health care reform etc etc.

      And yesterday's piece by kos himself advocating a placeholder until 2010 took the prize. Why in the hell should the Democratic party give the incumbent advantage in 2010 just because kos and a few others for whatever reason do not care for Caroline Kennedy? It is either time for kos to change of the mission of website (ie it would no longer be about electing Democrats), or start advocating the things Obama should lead on.

  •  Integrity and boldness of action, too! (0+ / 0-)

    Being a member of a dynasty means it's far easier - and, somehow, far more acceptable - to sit on a family's overstated laurels than to fight battles in earnest (Teddy Kennedy being the exception (sometimes) that proves the rule).

    As much as I despise Orrin Hatch for his positions, I respect him for his individualism and "self-madeness".  He got to where he is on merit, not on name-recognition.

    So, I guess we graduate high school into, what, more high school?

    Is it the deserving, hard-working kid who gets the prized position - or the popular kid who doesn't need to work hard (and doesn't know what it means)?

    Yeah.  I thought so.

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM PST

  •  She Asks to Be Time’s Person of the Year* (11+ / 0-)

    (satire)* By Andy Borowitz

    Caroline Kennedy would like to be considered Time magazine’s Person of the Year for 2009 and has let the magazine’s editor know of her interest in the honor, aides to Ms. Kennedy confirmed this week.

  •  Caroline - a question (0+ / 0-)

    A question for Caroline Kennedy-

    Whether or not Governor Patterson appoints you, will you be campaigning for the Senate seat vacated by HRC when re-election time comes in 2012?

    Regulate banks, not bedrooms

    by Eagleye on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:50:37 AM PST

  •  Frankly, how dare you write this front page. LOL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  High-horse (19+ / 0-)

    they earned their spots here

    If you like, but really the front-pagers were selected by one man, Markos, who used his own criteria, gut instincts, or whatever.  They were not chosen by the community.

    In that context, it is hard to use the word "earn".  The front-pagers were selected, just like Caroline will likely be.

  •  Based on the initial comments I've read... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stiela, happymisanthropy, BlueGenes

    the Caroline Kennedy faction completely missed the point of you diary. Which is a shame because it's the best written explanation of why appose the appointment. Oh well.

    There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. Distrust.

    by Demosthenes112358 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:51:11 AM PST

  •  About halfway between You and A Srs Supporter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueGenes, sethyeah

    is where I am right now...

    there hasn't been the strongest case for her yet. You're right.

    There also hasn't been any case for anyone. In reality, unless people start talking citizens up, the choice is something along the lines of Mario Cuomo. And the "he earned" it line may be technically true but somehow rings hollow on that front.

    Does Harry Reid have a "plan" or is he just in some permanent live-in-the-moment state gone frighteningly wrong?

    by Nulwee on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:51:16 AM PST

  •  Sweet Caroline (6+ / 0-)

    Some of my disagreement (in one posting) relates to Kos' seemingly knee-jerk dismissal of Kennedy, repeatedly. I think most of us don't reside in the camp of 'How dare you question?' but rather 'Let's take a look at her first'.  As another said above, we could do a lot worse (I live in New York - home of Eliot Spitzer). We shouldn't reject her out-of-hand only because she has a recognizable name.

    Revolution begins with the self, in the self....

    by Auster1 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:51:27 AM PST

  •  Ms. Kennedy Doesn't Need Your Support (17+ / 0-)

    As Al Giordano reminds us, as far as getting appointed to serve until the 2010 election, there is a constituency of one -- Governor Patterson.  

    Your support, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

    People here seem to be fixated on Caroline Kennedy's qualifications and positions because of her celebrity and because of her family name.  There are plenty of other people out there who aspire to be appointed and who haven't been the subject of even one front page post at dKos.  Which is fair -- live by celebrity; die by celebrity.

    But it does tend to undercut the sincerity of arguments about qualifications and positions on issues.  It tends to make the whole thing resemble a celebrity-focused wankfest a la Showbiz Tonight.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:51:32 AM PST

    •  Yes... (7+ / 0-)

      ...part of the reason I ceased to care about Kennedy is that no "small-fry" challengers from the meritocratic wing of the NY Dems seemed to be competent enough to get any air-time or breathing room with Caroline in the race. If they aren't good enough politicians to breakthrough somewhat I don't know why I should bother thinking about them.

      Of course Dailykos could help someone break out. That's what it's best at.

      And if Dailykos editors really weren't big fans of Caroline -- and weren't big fans because she can bigfoot everyone else out of the race thanks to her name -- it's bizarre that all the focus as been on Caroline and there has been precious little coverage of other potential candidates save Cuomo. How is it fighting for meritocracy when you mainly give virtual ink to the elite in the race (even if negatively), whose main advantage is name recognition?

      I think that just speaks to the fact that most people are generally against Caroline's candidacy as it's playing out but really actually don't care, can't all agree on a reasonable "meritocratic" challenger, and realize it's Patterson's choice anyway.

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raboof, alba, weebo

        And if Dailykos editors really weren't big fans of Caroline -- and weren't big fans because she can bigfoot everyone else out of the race thanks to her name -- it's bizarre that all the focus as been on Caroline and there has been precious little coverage of other potential candidates save Cuomo.

        Exactly. I'm sure people would be better persuaded if kos would outline what Caroline's views are on the war, health care etc vs what Cuomo's views are. Instead, it has only been focused on Caroline's lack of voting record etc etc.

        It just makes no sense. Who gives a rats' a** about someone's lack of voting record when we have issues like Iraq and health care?

    •  By That Standard (0+ / 0-)

      Nothing any of us, including Al Giordano, say about anything matters. Perhaps we should all just cut our tongues out and do what we're told.

      •  Or Maybe (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raboof, Yoshimi, IMind, weebo, sethyeah

        Talk about something that matters, or examine the positions of many more of the aspiring appointees so we at least know what's out there and what the consequences of a Patterson appointment would be.

        This place looks more like the Huffington Post each day.  A front page  post about Jennifer Aniston's boobs can't be too far off.

        This aggression will not stand, man.

        by kaleidescope on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:11:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You Don't Like (0+ / 0-)

          Celebrity culture, but you support this appointment to the U.S. Senate?

          Um kay.

          •  I Didn't Say I Support Ms. Kennedy's Appointment (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi, pollyusa, weebo

            I went to law school with her.  I know her and have good friends who went to her wedding.  But I am not actively supporting her for the Senate.  I only care that Andrew Cuomo not be appointed.  

            Personally, I would rather see Elliot Spitzer appointed.  He is certainly more qualified than any other person who has been mentioned as an aspiring appointee.  Also, I would rather see Ruth Messinger appointed.

            This aggression will not stand, man.

            by kaleidescope on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:52:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  For me, Caroline Kennedy equals an intelligent, (16+ / 0-)

    progressive Democrat and that's all I need to know about her qualifications to take on the Senate.  Also for me, I couldn't care less about front page bloggers.  We're all equal here, though most do a hell of lot more linking and have greater writing skills than I.  But as for their opinions?  How the f' cares?  Equal actually means equal to me.

    Peace and Happy Holidays, my fellow kossacks!

  •  I'm thinking (6+ / 0-)

    This one will not be based on merit....rather political expediency of having the Kennedy name and deep pockets available to assist Patterson et al for their own future runs.  Still she will have to campaign in 10 and again in 12.  The likelihood of a serious Republican challenge seems dim.  A child of the 60s I am just as susceptible as anyone to the lure of the Kennedy name and mystic dreams of Bobby wafting through the holiday cheer.

    Time waits for no one, the treasure is great spend it wisely.

    by mojavefog on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:52:50 AM PST

  •  One of the best blogs I ever read... (0+ / 0-)

    was written by someone who's name was never revealed.  Now that everyone knows who Deep Throat was (W. Mark Felt) and everyone correctly assumes that the song You're So Vain was written about Warren Beatty, the final unsolved political/cultural mystery is: who wrote those magnificent progressives rants that appeared in Media Whores Online?

    You can lead a Republican to the facts, but you can't make him think.

    by Greasy Grant on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:53:38 AM PST

  •  I'm neutral on this issue (9+ / 0-)

    The thing that bothers me is the degree of attention to this in comparison with other more pressing issues.

    "A country that doesn't make anything doesn't need a financial sector as there is nothing to finance." Paul Craig Roberts

    by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM PST

  •  What about spouses??? (6+ / 0-)

    I'm so confused as the outrage about Caroline possibly being appointed this seat.  What about the "spouses" of senators that have been appointed?  (All the names escape me now save for Dole).  Where was the outrage then?  Exactly what had they done to "earn" the seat?  Are we all forgetting that she'd have to run in '10, and then '12 anyway (assuming she won in '10).  I don't get it.  Sarah Palin thinks she's qualified to run for Senator, and people apparently think she's qualified, scary as that seems.  At least Caroline has a fully-functioning brain.

  •  I agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

    For whatever reason destiny has put me and Mr People in positions where we have to work for, or kowtow to, people who have gotten their positions through their families, either by reputation and name brand, or through trust funds, having a company bought for them, etc. Except for two people, they tend to be venal, incompetent and just plain mean.

    I'm not saying Caroline Kennedy is any of the above, but I am so sick of this inheritance thing. It's so friggin' medieval.

  •  We are talking about an Appointment, arnt we? (5+ / 0-)

    We are not discussing an election are we. This is an appointment by the governor of N.Y. to fill a vacant seat. Who is filling our vice president elect's vacant seat, I have no idea? This is about an APPOINTMENT not who earned or deserves it. What we should be discussing is how we might effect the Governor's choice. How can we influence his choice. I think our focus on Kennedy is actually a red herring. Getting angry over Kennedy's Hutpza, is useless. In fact if she is chosen we may be alienating her support in the future. We should be working to get someone WE want to replace Hillary in the Senate, not attacking the potential winner. More and Better Democrats, remember.

    Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

    by eddieb061345 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM PST

    •  You're ignoring the power of incubancy. (0+ / 0-)

      whoever is appointed has a mjor leg up in name recognition for the Dem primary in 2012, the winner of which is likely to win the general election.

      If someone with a thicker resume were to be a appointed, they would also have name recognition going into 2012.

      "Cynicism is a sorry wisdom." - Barack Obama

      by BlueGenes on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Camelot Dream Lives on. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Caroline the last Survivor of Camelot.

    Would we destroy that dream?

  •  You got a couple things wrong. (25+ / 0-)

    Skepticism?  Is that how you refer to the front page posts that have been written?  I refer to them as bashing, slamming, or trashing a good Democrat.  Let's see, in your (and by your, I refer to any/all of the front pagers) frequent skeptical posts, you've compared CK to Sarah Palin, among other things just as derogatory.

    How dare you?  No, that's not our intent at all, to suggest she can't be criticized.  Critized, yes - insulted, no.  

    The fact this site has as a mission statement to elect more and better Dems, but then engages in ripping on a fine Dem for the hell of it is what has pissed off myself and it seems like many others.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4200+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

    by Miss Blue on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM PST

  •  HOLY SHIT!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, sethyeah

    Last time I saw O topless, he was in nowhere as good shape as that.

  •  Meritocracy? I didn't know. It's news to me. (10+ / 0-)

    Adam B says:

    the whole ethos of this site is meritocracy, and it extends to the blogosphere as a whole.

    and he also says:

    Markos built this site -- and he invited the people who write for the front page -- and you come here to read them -- because of their ideas, and how well they express them.

    He then goes on to draw an analogy to the NY Senate vacancy and Caroline Kennedy, not realizing that the comparison makes no sense.

    Daily Kos and other blogs may be a "meritocracy." I'm not sure that's really the case but that's another discussion....

    But this is a blog, not the U.S. Senate. In politics, name recognition, however garnered, does matter, especially in a populous state. Whatever Daily Kos is or isn't is irrelevant. Governor Patterson has to make a political choice weighing all the longer term political pros & cons of any of the candidates. Who "deserves" the seat is only one of many considerations, and definitely not the most important one.

    For the record: I'm not a NY resident and I have no position on this other than arguing against irrational emotionalism as displayed by certain bloggers.

    This is not what I thought I'd be when I grew up.

    by itzik shpitzik on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM PST

  •  Bingo. Kos appoints the fp folks. We are all (13+ / 0-)

    observers to the "club."  The front-page is a good example of the same type of clubbiness Kos has an issue with.  Here it's relatively innocent and non-harmful, but there are arguements against such behavior in government.

    But I'm pretty Kos appoints the Front-Pagers.  Nothing in the FAQ says anything about him counting anyones vote but his own.

    Re: "the whole ethos of this site is meritocracy" --

    Um, no, not even remotely.  Kos makes a solid and reliable attempt at openness, but no one here makes any pretense that this is a merit-based system.

    Editorially, all decisions are by Kos and his team.

    That is the "appointment of the favored", not a meritocracy.  

    The difference obviously (and what we should discuss) is whether or not this is a good way to pick a governing representative of the people.

    Please don't place merit-based criteria where there are none.  Kos is not a meritocracy -- and this site and Kos himself frequently make that point.

    Discuss Caroline vs. Andrew vs. Powdered Toast Man all you wish.

    Statements like: "the whole ethos of this site is meritocracy" are pretentious and self-serving and in my book work against the valid arguement you make.

  •  You fail to understand the affection people my (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miss Blue, alba, LI Mike

    age.  When I was 6 her father was shot.  One of my earliest memories is being on Pennsylvania Avenue as his entourage marched from the White House to the Capitol Rotunda. We all loved Caroline Kennedy, and our affections remain over the years.  

    I personally believe that she would make an excellent Senator.  If she is appointed and does not, then she will be rejected in 2 years by the voters.

  •  Six names right off the top (0+ / 0-)

    "Never get out of the boat."

    by tlemon on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM PST

  •  When? (8+ / 0-)

    When are the next front-pager elections being held?

    "A country that doesn't make anything doesn't need a financial sector as there is nothing to finance." Paul Craig Roberts

    by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:59:53 AM PST

  •  With all due respect (15+ / 0-)

    Didn't you get appointed to your post?  I don't remember voting for you.

  •  Thank you for writing this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The vicious attacks here by some of the pro-CK crowd have really amazed and saddened me.  It's like there's only one proper way to think.

  •  No, ten (0+ / 0-)

    "Never get out of the boat."

    by tlemon on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:00:28 PM PST

  •  I noticed something else. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, weebo

    TOO MANY PEOPLE whose last names start with "L"

    Lawdy, leave it to lauding libertines, lapsing into languished, lewd, lengthy letters, littered with lethal lithography, often listing long lurid lyrics, lasting late and loosely logical.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM PST

    •  and don't get me started on the "M"s (0+ / 0-)

      morbid merriment to follow.

      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

      by agnostic on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:01:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Caroline Kennedy has as much right to 'lobby' for (17+ / 0-)

    the appointed seat as anyone else has and is.  The fact is, whether you approve or not, like it or not, that is the way the a vacant Senatorial seat is selected in New York State.

    I am equally appalled at the many snotty snide remarks made about Governor David Paterson on the basis that he has name recognition because of his politico father Basil Paterson and the other fact that he only got his position because of the resignation of Eliot Spitzer.

    I am finding this entire debate about the Illinois and New York seats totally ridiculous. If you don't like it and live in those states change the laws otherwise hold your horses and let the woman alone.  I am sick and tired of this class warfare  divisiveness, it really makes me wonder whether anyone believed Obama's message and vision about inclusiveness and unity.

    I want to link this article by Fareed Zakaria, not because it has anything to do with Kennedy but it has everything to do  with the Herculean tasks President Obama faces.

    as far as i am concerned these debates are distracting the attention of the nation from the real work ahead.

  •  IMO, the "How Dare You" (4+ / 0-)

    approach from either side is way over the top in this case. There are points to be made on each side.

    Part of the advantage of having a Kennedy is undoubtedly the legacy, which contributes to electability. Another point in her favor is that she came forward early to support Obama, which leads me to believe her policies would be very good.

    A point against her is that she doesn't seem to enjoy the Kennedy gift of charisma. I suspect her almost lethargic (to my ears) and soft-spoken answers she gave to questions about the possibility of her appointment has made a bad impression on many. We are looking for confident, tough and energetic representatives after witnessing eight years of Democratic timidity in the face of Republican attacks.

    She won't be a terrible choice, even if she might not turn out to be the best choice.

  •  How dare you! (0+ / 0-)

    Do you have any idea who I am?

  •  I never even knew how to pronounce "Gilliard" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan, carllaw

    but I didn't become addicted to his blog because of his name either.

    My own (uncommon) surname is recognized by many in the Des Moines area who remember my parents, yet doesn't mean a thing to anyone anywhere else in the world.

    My name has opened doors to me in central Iowa that might have been closed otherwise. But since moving back here six years ago, I have worked hard to prove I am deserving of opportunities such as serving on a non-profit board. I get engaged and do a lot more than the minimum.

    Caroline Kennedy can't help what family she was born into, but I think it would be better for her to prove that she wants this Senate seat by working hard to win it the old-fashioned way: in a competitive Democratic primary.

    I would like to see a placeholder appointed so that Kennedy and other talented NY Democrats can duke it out on level terms in 2010.

    If we were talking about a state like SD or IN, where a Democrat without a good political name like Herseth or Bayh had almost no chance in a statewide election, I would feel differently. But I see no reason why Kennedy should be favored with this appointment.

    Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

    by desmoinesdem on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:01:59 PM PST

  •  Only definitive on CKS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The only definitive information I have received on CKS is from the NY Times vouching that she is in the mainstream of American politics as she supports LGBTQ marital rights. Yes, that is definitely mainstream as the NY Times accurately points out, but as people powered kossacks, we appreciate that CKS supports our priority issue, but we do need more information on CKS.

    People power = LGBTQ marital rights = OBAMA '08!

    by kevinspa on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM PST

  •  As a Dem living in Texas (5+ / 0-)

    I'm going to let the people of New York decide this issue w/o offering my opinion. That said, I am a native of NYC and I recall how my mother's childhood and closest friends and our relatives (who still live there, though all upstate now) were up in arms when Hillary "The Carpetbagger" ran for the seat.  All threatened to start voting R.  In the end, my mother's friends and our relatives agree that Hillary did an excellent job as their Senator. I bet everyone of them loves Caroline, too, because she is a "true" New Yorker and they remember Caroline as a very young girl when her father was murdered.  The sympathy factor among this age group will be significant, me thinks, for whatever it's worth.  

  •  What do you know another frontpage post slamming (17+ / 0-)

    Caroline. I'm going to have to get my tin foil hat out.  I'm beginning to think that it's a concerted effort.  Why would so many bloggers spend so much time slamming Caroline.  Guess that the country is sailing on such a smooth course that all we have to do is bash Democrats.

    Already infighting amongst Dems and we haven't even taken power yet.  How many diaries do we need that slam Obama and Caroline?

  •  I never said,"how dare you..."but a)it's ok with (10+ / 0-)

    me if Caroline Kennedy is appointed and b)there are times when I think folks are just filling space over it.

  •  Here's my take on Caroline (6+ / 0-)

    Do I think she's the most qualified person in terms of hands on experience for the job? No I don't. However the senate has never been filled with the most qualified people, it's filled with people that have the ability to get elected. This unfortunately has to be a huge consideration as which ever candidate picked will have to run again in 2010 (and 2012).  So politics (the ability to win, the ability to raise money, the ability to help down ticket) has to be factored in.  Politics are always factored into these picks, so it doesn't make sense to become meritocracy purists just because it's a Kennedy up for appointment.

    Secondly, and here's why I may be a little naive, I believe Caroline Kennedy has the right motive in running for senate. I think the trappings of the office, the things that most senators revel in, the recognition, the access to powerful people, the attention from the press, the prestige, are all either old news or somewhat of a bother to Caroline. I think she would be more comfortable as a private citizen. So why is she running?  I believe that she believes she can use that platform to help people. It sounds cliche, but I think that's her only reason for running. I would rather have a senator with the right motives, than a senator with a ton of experience in it for the wrong reasons (if Blago had appointed himself to the senate, prior to his scandal breaking, no one would have questioned his qualifications for the job). This is also why I think she'll be able to handle the job, Caroline would have unquestionably talked to her Uncle Ted and to Obama among others about what the job requires, I would guess that she probably knows more about the senate the most freshman senators. If she didn't feel she would be effective as a Senator I don't think she would ask for the appointment. The only reason to ask to be a Senator knowing you would likely be ineffective is to obtain the title for your resume. I don't think that's what Caroline is interested in.

    Now having said all that, I don't disagree with the idea that she needs to make the case for herself in front of the people of New York.

  •  It's not a "how dare you criticize..." (16+ / 0-)

    It's the level of vitriol and just disingenuous arguments emanating from the front page lately that bothers a lot of us.

    Yes, she called up the governor and told him she was interested. As would anyone else who was interested in the seat. It would have been foolish for her not to call if she wanted it.

    This is a foolish argument to have. Someone is going to be appointed. Someone is going to have to run in 2010 and 2012. Kennedy has said she's going to do it anyway, and if the only other option is a lame duck placeholder, why not give her the opportunity to do some good now and help Obama's agenda along? You're going to find very few potential Senators more progressive than a Kennedy.

  •  my problem with her (4+ / 0-)

    is that I don't think she has any experience - not simply in politics, but in working full-time.

    Can someone who hasn't worked full-time at some point understand how things apply to people that have?  Will they even care?

  •  so the problem is she hasn't been campaigning??? (6+ / 0-)

    But at least they all campaigned for it.  They built statewide organizations, addressed the press and citizen concerns (including competing interest groups within the party), and persuaded voters over time that they had the judgment and policy depth to be elected.  The appointment process admittedly short-circuits that vetting for all of Sen. Clinton's potential replacements, but at least others in the field have gone through it once.

    there's only one flaw in your argument, and it's pretty glaring.

    anyone who gets this seat wouldn't have campaigned for it. its an appointment that the governor gets to make.

    and that's why i find the hostility towards caroline so puzzling. her critics all act as if she's the only one who gets to "avoid that pesky democracy thing" as kos once put it, when the truth is, that would be true for anyone patterson appoints, and yet, no hostility toward anyone other than caroline...


    I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.

    by freaktown on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM PST

    •  and btw, the voters will decide in 2010 anyway (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida, cybrestrike

      so if caroline gets it and isn't worthy, it will all work itself out.

      but, ultimately, i'm ambivalent about her candidacy. i just find the kennedy hatred here so puzzling.

      I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.

      by freaktown on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:10:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read it in full. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stiela, ssgbryan

      The appointment process admittedly short-circuits that vetting for all of Sen. Clinton's potential replacements, but at least others in the field have gone through it once.

      •  you're worried about vetting? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike, weebo

        your really think caroline has some skeletons? like what, she frequents a dc madame? or she meets men in airport bathrooms?

        she's a kennedy. there's not much we DONT know about her.

        I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.

        by freaktown on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:16:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not about vetting her personal life, but ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... about the ability to lead a campaign organization, to respond to tough questions, to weigh competing Democratic interest groups, to handle surprise, etc.

          I tried to stress this in the main post -- being a good Senator involves more than believing the right things.

          •  And how were you personally vetted to be the one (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pollyusa, alba, glassbeadgame, weebo, sethyeah

            who decide this?

            Is it possible, perhaps, that the front page mafia is out of step with a majority of the people on this site on this issue and maybe, just maybe, because of that, your insistence on making this a major issue is annoying a lot of us?

            I may be wrong, but I think there's more bashing of Kennedy on the front page than in the freaking NY Post, a right wing rag.

            What does that say?

            And more importantly, where is the pro-whomever columns getting people excited about a better candidate?

            If not Caroline, then who? Get people excited about someone ELSE and stop trying to shit on Kennedy and maybe, just maybe, you'll get more converts.

            •  I can only write one diary at a time. (0+ / 0-)

              And I hope you don't find this piece to be "bashing".

              •  This piece reads more as a defense of the bashing (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pollyusa, gustynpip, alba, weebo, sethyeah

                than bashing itself.

                Some of the FP's comments these last few days have been incredibly insulting to both New Yorkers in general as well as those of us who aren't opposing Kennedy.  Kos's attack on the "Bloombergs" of the world yesterday really left a nasty taste in my mouth, especially when one looks at where NYC is today versus seven years ago.  Considering many of his initiatives, the fact that Kos damns Bloomberg shows a stunning ignorance of his policies.

                All in all, I have gone from enjoying this site during this election to seeing those up top as the same old same old arrogant 'gatekeepers' you find anywhere else.

                Just because you guard a different form of structure doesn't make you any less likely to play the fool.

          •  And being a lousy senator (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            can happen even if you're a fantastic campaigner.

            Good Campaigner != Good Senator.

            Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

            by drbloodaxe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:57:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  yes we love our wonderfully vetted political (0+ / 0-)


  •  Go Caroline Go Girl (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Molly M, kevinspa, alba
  •  Between Obama, Hillary, and Caroline (8+ / 0-)

    Which one of the three supports full marriage equality before the law for gays and lesbians?
    Hint:  it's the one with no political experience.

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM PST

  •  Pure naked projection (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Mash, alba, cybrestrike, weebo, sethyeah

    I don't intend to psychoanalyze the motives of those who remain so defensive of Ms. Kennedy's candidacy

    Defensive much?

    You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

    by abrauer on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:10:12 PM PST

  •  My instant reaction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stiela, cybrestrike

    Not convinced.   When she stepped before the camera at the convention, I saw an individual of average abilities and a good upbringing, who has done positive things with her station in life but was not particularly intelligent or inspiring.   This is a chance for the governor to advance the career of an extraordinary individual into arguably one of the important elected office positions in the US.   Now my gut might be wrong, but that's my feeling about it right now.

    "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    by ActivatedbyBush on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM PST

  •  I favor Caroline, even if she does come from a (4+ / 0-)

    dynasty, because the quality of our elected officials in this country is so pitifully low I figure my chances are better with someone who comes from a dynasty of proven public service and integrity.  The chances of getting someone as good from our current crop of corrupted and caving elected officials is not very good.

  •  If FPers didn't feel the neeed (13+ / 0-)

    to bash CK every freakin' day (some days more than once), I wouldn't complain, but this is asinine.

    •  I agree. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollyusa, roycej, weebo, sethyeah
      One story would have been more than appropriate. A follow up a couple of weeks later would have been objectionable.

      But this daily obsession - with rotating front pagers being assigned the daily Caroline beat - does not help this site. There is nothing about New York State politics, other possible candidates for the Senate seat, what factions they belong to and who their friends and enemies are, the interest differences between upstate and downstate, what political factors Paterson has to consider when making the choice ... in fact no substantive analysis whatsoever other than Caroline Teh Bad.

      We don't need celebrity politics here. We get more than enough of that in the mass media. We need intelligent commentary and we're not getting it.

    •  this is bashing? nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  We don't choose our parents (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drbloodaxe, cybrestrike

    and CK seems to have done a decent job of living up to the Kennedy legacy of public service.  That alone doesn't qualify her for the Senate, of course, but it's not a bad start for a caretaking appointment.  

    I also wager she won't embarrass Democrats by displaying the other, less appealing part of the Kennedy legacy, namely marital infidelity practiced as an art form.  

    Electing a Republican is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

    by dotalbon on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:13:10 PM PST

  •  Listen, youse guys (7+ / 0-)

    That Senate seat is [bleeping] valuable, see. We aren't letting it go for [bleeping] nothing, see. We'll put that [bleeping] Spitzer in there if we don't get some [bleeping] cash, see.

    Top of the world, Ma! Top of the world!

  •  I agree 100%; meritocracy > faux nobility n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    scanner something mushroom cloud. -9.25 -8.92

    by el zilcho on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM PST

  •  I agree, but it's still hard (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, alba

    For those of us of a certain age, who still have those images of her and John Jr. at the funeral, we just have a hard time hearing anything negative about her.  It is quite deeply ingrained.  I know she is probably not the most qualified candidate, but it's still hard to hear the criticism.

  •  Just a question for the commenters... (5+ / 0-)

    ...why on Earth do we care so much about this again?

    I feel like it's possible to have an opinion on a blog somewhere in the middle ground between total apathy and True Believerism, and that the current commenting regime on Caroline Kennedy has left that middle ground looking like Death Valley.

    Why does anyone care this much about CaKe, either way? How is it possible to? Money? Is half this blog subsidized by Kennedys and half by the Cuomos? Where can I get in on that? Am I missing out on some amazing dynasty dollars?

    Please, keep your, "IT'S ABOUT DEMOCRACY!" stuff to a minimum, it's about an appointment.

    Can't we just make a few CaKe Blingees, wait for Patterson to make his choice (or an obviously more qualified candidate to appear) and move on?

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:17:20 PM PST

  •  maybe we need a special prosecutor here (7+ / 0-)

    one who can investigate what the FPers on this and other blogs really have against Caroline Kennedy becoming NY's Senator?

    Hmmm, maybe we can ask OBAMA to appoint one instead of investigating Cheney  :)

    what I wonder is, why people who don't LIVE in NY seem to be more interested in who our Gov picks than we, NYers, are.

    "Beware the Jabberwock"

    by KnotIookin on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:17:54 PM PST

  •  The reason for the hostility (11+ / 0-)

    is that much of the front page hostility is being perceived as a personal attack on Kennedy and anyone who dares disagree with the hostility the front pagers have to her.

    I mean, the amount of space devoted to attacking her is matched only by Republican New Yorkers visa vis Kennedy.

    Markos damned her yesterday for not being willing to support Democratic candidates in 2010..which is funny because Markos did the same to Lieberman in 2006.

    Look, I get the complaint that she isn't qualified, but once you've made that point, what else is there to say? Those who disagree aren't being convinced.

    And acting like insufferable childish hypocrites isn't likely to sway anyone.

  •  What an outrage... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Meritocracy for the commoners...entitlement for the wealthy...gee that never happens, c'mon, grow the f@#$ up!

    In the beginning there was nothing...which exploded.

    by lucysdad on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM PST

  •  Why does anyone have to campaign for (5+ / 0-)

    a year-long appointment?  The Gov. will appoint someone, and their only qualification has to be that Patterson trusts them.  That person must also be able to successfully defend the seat in 2010 and 2012.  Patterson will appoint who he chooses, and that's that...

    No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

    by jarhead5536 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM PST

  •  Jeez, give it a rest... (8+ / 0-)

    We here at DailyKos criticize Democratic office-holders and office-seekers all the time, but rarely have I seen the level of how dare you question? hostility as with the response to the front-paged stories offering skepticism towards Caroline Kennedy's pursuit of a Senatorial appointment.

    Rarely have I seen front-pagers whining so much and carrying on a mini-vendetta against a democrat not named Lieberman.

    Spare me the self-righteous assertions of "meritocracy". People get to where they are all kinds of ways. How many old white guys with no previous political experience(dem and repub) have bought their Senate seats by using their personal fortunes to outspend their opponents.

    And I don't even support Kennedy.

    I understand the diaries that argue against her appointment. One diary would have been more than enough to make the case. Instead we see numerous diaries containing newly invented trivial criteria to "prove" her unworthiness.

    After awhile, it's just silly.

    If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible...tonight is your answer.

    by Azdak on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM PST

  •  How does "earning" the right to be a front (10+ / 0-)

    pager, (I guess "paying your dues" being inferrred) have anything to do with Caroline Kennedy indicating she's interested in Hillary's vacant Senate seat? I'm sorry, I think the comparison is specious and a big presumptious.

    Caroline has been a working mom, quietly serving the public behind the scenes for over 20 years. She's always been a serious person - not jet setting around and getting into trouble like many other family members. She's got a law degree. She's written books about Constitutional law. She's from a family dedicated to public service and representing those less fortunate. (And you don't think CK is well aware of the rough and tumble world of politics? You don't think she knows the investment of time and effort and the fortitude that running for public office entails?)

    Caroline, with all her wealth and trauma in her life, could have decided to live the frivolous life of a NY socialite. She did not.

    I agree with some of the commenters above - it stuns me why there is so much animosity towards CK among front pagers on a number of blogs, including Kos. Very, very disappointing - but we're all entitled to our opinions.

    Having money, being well educated and rich does not make you a bad person. It's what you do with all that, that defines the type of person you are. I think CK has passed that test with flying colors.

  •  Is that tumescent? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B

    or turgid? I get confused so easily about these things.

    Thanks AB. Couldn't have said it better myself.



  •  i made this point upthread but i want to repeat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alba, RDemocrat

    the voters will get to decide in 2010 anyway. so if caroline (or whoever is picked) blows hard as a senator, there's a mechanism to correct it called "an election".

    it's not a supreme court seat or a lifetime appointment. it's a two year job in which the voters will have the ultimate say (they always do).

    so really, i don't see the big deal.

    I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.

    by freaktown on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM PST

  •  And we thought after we won (0+ / 0-)

    We would have nothing to fight about!

    Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

    by eddieb061345 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:26:52 PM PST

  •  How Dare You Tell People To Think! WTF does (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that have to do with anything?

    I see Caroline,
    I see Camelot,
    I swoon.


    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM PST

    •  Yes, there are some people reacting that way. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It's kind of shocking, actually. But that isn't how I or a number of others interested in CKS react. I am not stuck on "Camelot."  I was deeply touched by RFK, but that really doesn't have anything to do with Caroline Kennedy.

      My concern is that it seems to me many in the netroots are trashing the most progressive candidate because she is from a famous family. I think that falls into the "shooting ourselves in the foot" category.

      ("Trashing" doesn't apply to this diary by the way. Adam B's approach is more reasonable and nuanced than 90 percent of the diaries on either side of this issue.)

  •  I don't have a problem with Kos (9+ / 0-)

    or any of you guys NOT supporting her. I'm not asking you to put up a freaking ActBlue page for her or to sing her praises. All I am asking of you is to be fair to her, to not be insulting to her (like the J. Lo comparison) and not insinuate falsehoods about her (e.g., she supports Lieberman, NO she supported Lamont). I wasn't even around in the 60s but I am very protective of her and the Kennedys as a clan. I don't know what it is but I think this country owes it to that family to treat them with respect after everything they have done. The more you bash her indiscrimately, the more we will support her. Which is why I wish there was a special election right now. She would win hands down and anyone who played hardball with her, would be creamed.  

    I am a New Yorker and I support Caroline Kennedy for U.S. Senate. Go Caroline!

    by Rebecca74 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:28:50 PM PST

  •  I've been kind of stunned at the degree to which (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stiela, milkbone, Rebecca74

    many posters seem ready to assume that she will be effective and to take real umbrage at any suggestion that there really isn't any evidence to suggest that she would be, at this point.  

    I agree wholeheartedly with this post, Adam, and I'm glad to see a balanced and, IMO, absolutely correct analysis on the FP.  

    As an aside, the reason I think that there has been such hurt and hostility in the comments sections is that kos, sensing that he had uncovered a soft spot (folks who are first and foremost taken with Caroline's mythology and secondarily will make just about any kind of sensible or senseless argument in support of her appointment . . . no this isn't everybody, but yes it does describe some people), set about to probe it with what I'm sure he knows full well are provocative jibes . . . the way he does.  Given that, it's probably not that surprising that Caroline-lovers dug in their heels.  Feeling attacked and/or belittled usually brings out that response.  

    And then, of course, the more people who feel attacked and belittled become defensive and start posting silly arguments in support of the appointment, the more likely it becomes that others may join in the fray (as I am afraid I have guilty of doing once or twice), which in turn makes the supporters feel even more attacked and belittled (although I am pretty sure they are in a solid majority on this site).

    And so you have a full-on Daily Kos self-fueling meltdown.  Over basically nothing, since I think everyone agrees that it would be great if Kennedy turned out to be a fantastic, progressive Senator with the chops to hold her own.  

    The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place -- in cities all over America -- Frank Rich

    by Mother of Zeus on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:29:13 PM PST

    •  Let me see if I have this right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weebo, sethyeah

      When you perceive that commenters feel "attacked and belittled" you "join the fray"?  

      Why, pray tell, would you want to do this?  

      •  Let me see if I have this right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I write that "I am afraid I have been guilty" of joining in the fray once or twice, and you decide to deliberately twist my words to suggest that I have a habit of piling on when I perceive that someone feels attacked.

        And why, pray tell, would you want to do that?

        The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place -- in cities all over America -- Frank Rich

        by Mother of Zeus on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:00:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you see the word "habit" in my post? (0+ / 0-)

          I guess you don't want to answer my question.

          To answer yours, I don't want to "twist your words." I want to know why you would want to "pile on" when you "perceive that someone feels attacked." If that is not what you said, I apologize.

          •  Find something in my post that (0+ / 0-)

            said I "want to" pile on.  "I am afraid I have been guilty" pretty obviously implies something else entirely to someone who is trying to give an honest reading to my words.

            The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place -- in cities all over America -- Frank Rich

            by Mother of Zeus on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:11:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The arguments aginst Caroline are the same ones (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, pollyusa, alba, weebo

      used against Hillary, when she ran for that seat, except, of course, for the "carpetbagger" meme, to which Caroline is not subject. And except Caroline has done much more for the people of New York than Hillary had ever done. Kos's "arguments" against her are so utterly devoid of rationality that it's fairly obvious that he has a hidden agenda here.

  •  Ms. Kennedy earned my support today! (9+ / 0-)

    Before I say why she earned my support, I want to say that I believe that the power to appoint a Senator should be taken away from Governors and special elections should be held instead.  I am against the political-family-dyansty-monarchy thing that takes place in ALL democratic countries.  However, it is what it is and I have changed my mind about Caroline Kennedy.

    Today it was reported on the news that Ms. Kennedy supports gay rights/equality and believes that gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married.  

    SOLD!  There are very few politicians who have the courage to say what they know is right and support this position publicly!  She said it, she believes in the constitution (having written a few books) and I believe she is a very smart lady.  I think she can win (in two years) and do positive things in the Senate for New Yorkers and all Americans!

    One week ago, I was inclined not to support her.  Today, I support her wholeheartedly!

    •  Wish I could dub-rec for the spec elections note. (0+ / 0-)

      It's insane that a Governor be able to appoint someone to national office.

      "You only live once. Let's keep trucking. If we don't do that, who's going to do it for us? We have to be happy. Why hate?" - Anthony Acevedo, WWII veteran

      by Black Leather Rain on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:45:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Slow media day? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, Mike E

    "Barack, put Helen back in the front row"

    by egarratt on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM PST

  •  *This* was worthy of a front page story?? (19+ / 0-)

    Good Lord.
    The reason people have been defensive of Caroline Kennedy is because the attacks on her by you, kos, brownsox, even Jed, have been petty in the extreme.  Stuff like, "Caroline Kennedy Won't Commit To Support Democrats", when the reality is more like "Caroline won't blindly commit to back nameless Democrat over the highly regarded Bloomberg".  Kos's attack was both petty and disingenuous.  Or how about Kos's "Caroline Kennedy's commitment to voting", suggesting that she almost never votes, when the nearly the opposite was the case.  Then there's the case where Caroline says she didn't support the Iraq war from the start, and your response was "Prove it", suggesting that she may be a liar.

    Meanwhile, Cuomo hasn't blindly committed to support all Democratic candidates for all time, hasn't proven that he opposed the Iraq war from the start (if he opposes it at all), and hasn't had his election voting patterns examined.

    Then there's the attacks about Kennedy being as bad or worse than Palin, glossing over the fact that Palin is an ignoramus, an anti-intellectual, had to go to 5 colleges to finally get her sports journalism degree, and was vying to become one 72-year old heartbeat from the Presidency; while Caroline is an intellectual whose only seeking to be one of 100 legislators.  Complete intellectual dishonesty on display.

    The attacks have been sophistry, and not even good sophistry, but the sort of sophistry that a child could easily see through.

    At least the anti-Dynasty arguments (on which this very diary is based) are at least honest and not the complete bullshit we've seen over the past few days, like the examples I provide above.

  •  Out of curiosity (0+ / 0-)

    How is it, then, that a site led by so many defenders of a merit-based society, can also defend labor unions to the extent they are supported here?

    Labor unions use their clout to reward seniority over merit, yet they are defended here.  

    Just askin - no offense meant.

  •  I have no problem (6+ / 0-)

    with people saying that she is not entirely qualified; however, I get a little hot under the collar when Adam actually compares her to Sarah Palin and then goes on to say Sarah Palin is more accomplished.  It makes me unable to take any of his other arguments about her seriously.  Regardless of how well he writes them.

    •  Because, I think ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... if I had just told you Palin's resume, and you had never heard her speak, you'd be more open to the analysis.  Lord knows I'd never compare them on the merits of their accomplishments.

      •  You think wrong (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, pollyusa, Naranjadia, alba, weebo, fl1972

        I think resume includes education and Caroline's education is far far superior to Ms. Palin. Yes Ms. Palin managed to get elected in Wasilla and Alaska but hey Blagojevich got elected too (twice) and si did George Bush. also. dick cheney.

        I am a New Yorker and I support Caroline Kennedy for U.S. Senate. Go Caroline!

        by Rebecca74 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And Palin got elected by leaving some bodies (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          weebo, fl1972

          behind.  Ask some of her political opponents how they feel about the lies and smears they suffered at the hands of Ms. Palin.  But then Adam B admires that Palin scratched her way to the top.

        •  Palin's last name doesn't get her into Harvard. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I really don't want to re-fight this one, but if you can't see how getting from where Palin was at age 22 to where she is now as an "accomplishment," then I can't help you with those ideological blinders.

          •  Fine. If you think Caroline got in because of (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, weebo, Rebecca74

            her name, they don't just give out degrees because of it.  Also, she didn't go to several different colleges to complete her undergraduate degree as Sarah Palin did.  Again, there is no comparison. By the way, there are no blinders.  I just take issue with you, a progressive, comparing the two and then saying that Palin is more accomplished.  It's ridiculous and somewhat sexist.  If you can't get the blinders off to see that, then I can't help you.

            •  no, at Harvard they pretty much do. (0+ / 0-)

              You have to try hard not to graduate with honors.  Passing the NY Bar, however, no one can take away.

              I don't doubt that she's smart.  I'm just arguing that what Palin did took smarts too.

              •  We are going around in circles here. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                raboof, RDemocrat, weebo, Rebecca74

                I have an issue with the Caroline bashing without putting forth someone who you would rather see in that seat.  I have no problem if you think there are better candidates out there.  I would love to here about his or her credentials and why he or she should get the seat.  Instead, all I see are a barrage of diaries shouting why Caroline sucks.  It is getting so old.  

                •  Fine. Fritz Schwarz (0+ / 0-)


                  In a distinguished legal career spanning four decades, Mr. Schwarz has shown a unique ability to combine the highest level of private practice with a series of critically important public service assignments. In every case, Mr. Schwarz has handled these responsibilities with his trademark grace and insight. He comes to the Center with a broad litigation record from Cravath, Swaine & Moore, where he had been a partner since 1969. Mr. Schwarz left the firm twice, once to serve as chief counsel to the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activity (1975-1976), and again to serve as Corporation Counsel under New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch (1982-1986). In 1989, he chaired the commission that revised New York City's charter. In addition to currently serving as senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, he chairs the Board of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Board of the Vera Institute of Justice.

                  Mr. Schwarz received an A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1957 and a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1960, where he was an editor of the Law Review. After a year's clerkship with Judge J. Lumbard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, he worked one year for the Nigerian government as Assistant Commissioner for Law Revision under a Ford Foundation grant.

          •  Can you prove... (0+ / 0-)

            That CK got into Harvard because of her name???

          •  It's a long, long way from Harvard to this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Rebecca74

            Hawaii Pacific University - fall 1982
            North Idaho College (a two-year school) - spring 1983 through fall 1983
            University of Idaho - fall 1984 - spring 1985
            Matanuska-Susitna College (a two-year school) - fall 1985
            University of Idaho - spring 1986 - spring 1987

  •  Corzine, Franken (9+ / 0-)

    There are plenty of others who didn't hold elected office before going to the Senate.

    The Constitution doesn't require previous office and the founders thought that CITIZENS could serve in high elected office. They certainly didn't want a permanent political class.  Why would we?

  •  As a New Yorker I feel (8+ / 0-)

    we could do worse than Caroline, like Chuck Schumer.

  •  Herb Kohl (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, weebo

    was also a businessman before becoming a senator. He had incredibly high name recognition because he was heir to the Kohls department store and grocery store chain, which he ran for a number of years. He was also, as noted, state chair of the party before running for Senate. And he owned the Bucks.

    Back on topic -- I agree.

    car wreck : car insurance :: climate wreck : climate insurance

    by HarlanNY on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM PST

  •  "At least they campaigned for it" (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, Molly M, Seeds, alba, weebo

    So, it's her fault there's a vacancy?  And therefore be disqualified.

    Unions: The Folks That Brought You the Weekend

    by Paleo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:42:21 PM PST

    •  In a perfect world, there would be a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alba, weebo

      special election and Kennedy would campaign for the seat.  But that is not possible under the current law and as a non-New Yorker, I am hopeful that Obama gets as much help in the US Senate as he can as soon as he can.  He is going to have to deal with a boatload of problems, thanks to Bush, and he will need those vacant seats filled.

  •  Earth to Adam! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RDemocrat, weebo

    As someone who supported Hillary over Obama in the primaries, I can only shake my head in wonder at your breathless astonishment at "how dare you criticize?" remarks. That is the exact response coming from half of the commenters dkos any time anyone had the audacity to criticize Obama.  

    Welcome to the real world.  

    First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

    by flo58 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM PST

  •  You have everything but . . . (0+ / 0-)

    no, not the kitchen sink, but rather this simple question:

    Who would be the strongest candidate?  Is that a consideration in, dare I say it, politics?  Or is everything done by merit?

    Unions: The Folks That Brought You the Weekend

    by Paleo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM PST

  •  I ran into such hostility at Netroots Nation, (9+ / 0-)

    when I dared comment, after her appearance, that I was not at all impressed with Nancy Pelosi's skill or mental agility.  A woman whom I had never met, who did not know me at all, and who was apparently a KOS big whig who had been sheparding Ms. Pelosi around, replied:  "Why do you hate women?"  I would love for this person to step forward and identify herself.  No doubt she is railing against all Caroline detractors in a similar manner.  How she deserves to be associated with Kos is beyond me.

    There is a word for those who try to suppress the vote: TRAITORS.

    by hcc in VA on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM PST

  •  Caroline Who? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  But she wrote a book! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stiela, sunshineonthebay, carllaw

    A book I tell you!

  •  I have no problem with (7+ / 0-)

    Sen. Caroline Kennedy (D-NY).

    Sounds pretty good to me.

    I think The Field makes many great points in his diary, especially regarding Kennedy's potential to sustain a groundroots financing base.

    "The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason." --Benjamin Franklin

    by Dragon5616 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:46:33 PM PST

  •  this isn't about how dare you question (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Feanor, Superpole, weebo

    this is about being consistent.

    Either you're for appointments or you aren't.

    And there seems to be a double standard for Caroline and that annonys me.

    •  The appointment is a given. That's how it's done (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi, alba, weebo

      in New York. So nobody is going to campaign (in the normal sense) for this seat, until 2010.

      The position of some people seems to be, "Then it should go to someone who has campaigned at some point in their lives. That's the minimum standard any candidate must meet."

      I think it should go to someone who will hold progressive positions, and while I would prefer it be someone who had run a campaign before, I'll settle for someone who has considerable knowledge of campaigns but has not run one before, if she's the candidate with the best positions. So I hope it goes to Caroline Kennedy.

      The question of whether people support appointments in general is a completely separate question, in my opinion.

  •  This is ridiculous (15+ / 0-)

    This whole line of attack on Caroline Kennedy is absurd. Are we supposed to hold her family against Ms. Kennedy? Oh horrors, she never ran for office before!

    I thought we were simply supposed to evaluate candidates based on their position on issues, and then lesser factors such as their plausibility (fundraising ability and other factors relating to whether or not they can win election) and how effective they'd be at advancing their positions? Isn't this what really matters?

    I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on Caroline Kennedy-- because I don't know much about her! But I have a pretty strong opinion about this line of argument against her; I think it stinks.

  •  This site is quickly turning into a joke. (11+ / 0-)

    Between this and the Warren thing, it is sliding quickly into irrelevancy and feeding the "angry left" accusations that had it had unfairly warranted in the past.  It's truly a shame really.  Oh, and unless you're a NY resident, pipe down and worry about your own representatives.

    •  I call bullshit on you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Come on. This is big news. And it's the UNITED STATES Senate, not the New York senate. It matters to every American who serves there.

      And what's wrong with having an "angry left?"

      •  Bullshit right back at you. (4+ / 0-)

        Last time I checked, it was up to the STATES to decide who will represent them, not a bunch of hysterical bloggers who throw a hissy fit at the drop of a hat these days.  Well, of course, if said hysterical hissy fittin' bloggers are residents of the state in question, then knock yourselves out.

        Nothing's wrong with an "angry left", but when they are constantly angry over the littlest perceived slight, then it becomes a problem. See the 25-20 years prior to a month ago.

        •  Are you really so literal-minded? (0+ / 0-)

          You mean the federal laws introduced and voted on by New york's senators ONLY apply to New Yorkers? So only New Yorkers are allowed to CARE who New York sends to the senate?

          Don't be an ass. IT MATTERS TO EVERYBODY who serves in the US senate. They make FEDERAL law that affects EVERYBODY. Jesus, you aren't that stupid. Your argument is embarrassing. Take it back, for your own sake.

          •  Ahh, looks like someone has mastered the (0+ / 0-)

            Republican fine art of accusing someone else of that which they themselves are guilty of.  Well done, grasshopper.

            I just wish those who have come out so strongly against Caroline Kennedy but as much effort into getting rid of the truly incompetant members of the Senate that are already there.  You know, Republican morons?  

  •  "At least they campaigned for it?" (9+ / 0-)

    What's Caroline doing? She's campaigning for the one vote she needs. So's Cuomo and everybody else. The "at least they campaigned for it" argument holds no water at all.

    Frankly, I'm surprised at the level of skepticism and hostility leveled toward Caroline. God knows JFK Jr. wouldn't have been greeted like this. And after all, Caroline's not significantly less "qualified" than Hillary was when she laid claim to the seat, and Caroline has sure as hell done more for New York than Hillary had done when SHE ran. This seems to be New York's seat for nepotistic women, and I don't see why Caroline has less of a right to it than Hillary did.

    As for the so-called meritocratic basis of the hostility, that's just not good enough. There's no such thing as a meritocracy, anyway, just as there's no such thing as a free market. And I recall there were plenty of people who gave John-John shit for NOT trading on his heritage and entering politics. Now Caroline gets shit for doing the opposite.

    What we have here is a smart, famous, opportunistic (she IS a Kennedy, after all) woman who is, as the post noted, at least as qualified as any number of senators. Her policy positions are fine, her money-raising potential huge, and her persona is terrific.

  •  I really wonder (6+ / 0-)

    if we would be hearing all this discussion if her name weren't Kennedy.

    Governors have been appointing senators for years, and we rarely hear this kind of commentary. If she were a man from a well-to-do family, still a lawyer (I think Harvard-educated, but am not sure, and don't much care) and had lived a private life but written books defending the Constitution- do you think we'd be hearing all this?

    IMO, the name does not means she's unqualified.  

  •  I support Kennedy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollyusa, Molly M, alba, LI Mike

    It's because of her uncle that I supported Kerry and Obama.
    I was 12 when JFK was assassinated and campaigning for McCarthy when
     RFK was assassinated (but he would have been better than Humphrey
     or Nixon.)

    As for the "names" you mentioned, I recognize a couple.  Bloggers over rate
     their importance sometimes, just like the regular press.  I was at all 3
     Kos conventions (Vegas, Chicago and Denver) and also the Big Tent at
     the DNC.

    You won't have heard of my name as I generally lurk.

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    by DiAnne on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:51:50 PM PST

  •  Is Caroline as Progressive as JFK on (0+ / 0-)

    space? America needs to develop commerical space while we still have an edge.

    I hope Richardson presses commerical space.

    "If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind "

    John F. Kennedy at Rice Univ.

  •  HRC Raised $50 Million For Her Senate Run (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alba, weebo

    "and as a freshman Senator she had to work her ass off before gaining any respect or influence; her celebrity purchased nothing there".

    the SAME can be said for anyone newly elected to the senate. HRC's celebrity certainly did help her raise more than enough money to run for the NY senate seat:

    She has certainly built up the electoral machine for a powerful run for the top job. Her own frenetic schedule is amplified by an electronic network of daily emails, conference calls and websites that generates enormous sums. She has raised more than $50m for the Senate race even though victory was always certain, much of which will sit in the coffers once the mid-terms are over.

    Lynn de Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch? how exactly does one get the help of these heavyweights if one is not a heavyweight?

    "sorry", the U.S. senate is one of the most exclusive clubs in the world-- if the club is made up of mostly millionaire upper class types, then I want as many of those as possible to be OUR millionaire upper class types, not the corporate ass-kissing type we are loaded with now.

    "People and governments need the courage to do the right thing". Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

    by Superpole on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM PST

    •  it's not mostly millionaires. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Bob Casey, Sherrod Brown, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold ... quite a lot of folks without much in their wallets.

      •  The Number of Millionaires in the Senate: (0+ / 0-)

        nearly half of the members of the senate are millionaires- 45 according to the article/link below.

        looking at this in terms of "representative government", this is clearly wayyyy out of whack given the small number of the overall U.S. population which are millionaires.

        thus my original point is valid.

        "People and governments need the courage to do the right thing". Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

        by Superpole on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and many of the others are millionaires too (0+ / 0-)

          because they do not include the value of their homes in tabulating their wealth. Joe Biden, for example, has a very nice home and is probably a millionaire in actuality . .

        •  a 2005 link (0+ / 0-)

          And many of the people cited in there -- Corzine, Frist, Chafee -- have been replaced.  (Okay, Frist was replaced by another millionaire -- Bob Corker.)

          •  OK- Apparently (0+ / 0-)

            you're getting your emotions tangled up with facts.

            I, like you, would like to believe there are not too many millionaires in the senate. unfortunately the facts say otherwise.

            "People and governments need the courage to do the right thing". Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

            by Superpole on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 09:48:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, she didn't. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, carllaw

      Not for her first Senate run, anyway.

      She raised $34 million, and was outraised by her opponent.

      I am aware of all internet traditions.

      by Arjun Jaikumar on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:58:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  2006 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm talking about her 2006 run, as per the article/link.

        the point is, HRC IS a celebrity, a highly recognized name, just as C. Kennedy. to imply otherwise, as the diarist attempts.. is about as bogus as it gets.

        "People and governments need the courage to do the right thing". Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

        by Superpole on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:50:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This certainly is a firestore (0+ / 0-)

    Caroline Kennedy may be wonderful choice, but is it really asking so much to have her prove it up front? There are thousands of New Yorkers with her level of accomplishment but she is the only one whose father was JFK. Should your father's name be enough to give you a Senate seat? Really? Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter what any of us say (unless the Governor of New York happens to be lurking here) because it is the Gov's sole choice. As long as she is over 30, a U.S. citizen and a resident of New York she is qualified as far as the Constitution is concerned. Let the Governor make is decision, whatever it may be, and then we can all argue it on it's merits.

  •  How negative of you ... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Molly M, alba, Dave Sund, weebo, sethyeah, Rebecca74

    You're completely missing one of the most important political facts underlying Obama's success.  The American people are totally sick and tired of people who make negative statements about people they don't like or support.  

    In other words, we don't give a flying funk what you have to say about Caroline Kennedy if you don't support her.  Tell us about who you do support and why and we might listen.  But this negative stuff is totally crapola.  

    I support Caroline Kennedy's candidacy because she's real smart, and a repected constitutional scholar.  Plus I think she'll easily be re-elected and help maintain the Democrat majority in the Senate.

    I'm not going to say a word about any of her opponents.  Get it?

    It must be true I read it on the internet

    by Studs McGonagle on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:54:14 PM PST

  •  The Page is reporting that Paterson (0+ / 0-)

    is discussing the Senate seat with Rep. Steve Israel, who is accompanying him on a trip to Iraq this week.

    Also, when asked, Andrew Cuomo, who has worked very hard this year, also intimated that he has been quietly campaigning for the job

    Both of these men have done a heck of a lot in the last few years than Caroline has.

    My bet is that she's not even among the top level of contenders.

  •  Didn't you leave off Harnsberger? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Or does he not count as a front pager?

    This space available...

    by phoebe1st on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:55:28 PM PST

  •  There's sexism in the objections to Kennedy. (9+ / 0-)

    How did Ned Lamont earn our adoration?  He had done nothing in politics.  He made a lot of money for himself and his family.  That was his only qualification.  That and his rhetoric, that fed right into the netroots ego.

    Caroline Kennedy has spent her life doing things that were behind the scenes, not obviously political.  She raised children, wrote books, did oodles of volunteer work.  Served on lots of volunteer boards.  She's done plenty.

    But those things don't count as "experience" to some people around here.  That's not work, that's just "women's work."  That's not the kind of work that is valued in our society unless your sole claim on recognition is as someone's wife.


    "The other folks are voting!" Rep. Chambliss (R-GA)

    by keeplaughing on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:55:47 PM PST

    •  Didn't he run in an election? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stiela, Fabian, carllaw

      I don't believe he was appointed.

      •  So... the only objection is that this is an (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, drbloodaxe, weebo


        Does that disqualify ANYONE who has never run in an election from being appointed to a vacated congressional seat?

        If Kennedy had run in a primary previous to this, we'd all be bowing at her feet, a la Lamont in his primary run?

        •  Who knows how we'd feel about Kennedy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fabian, carllaw

          if she had run in a primary previous to this.  She might have done magnificently.  She might have done miserably.  She might have done anything in between.

          Given that Kennedy has no experience serving in a legislature and no experience running as a candidate, and there are plenty of NYS politicians who have experience in both arenas, are you saying that that's not something reasonable to be concerned about?

          So how does all this fit into that sexism framework of yours?

  •  Campaigned before -- who cares (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Molly M, alba, jogger, weebo, sethyeah, Rebecca74

    I don't care if someone has campaigned before or held office.  

    W did.

    Let's get out of the box, completely.

    I respect Caroline for all the obvious reasons.  Doesn't matter to me if she is Senator now or not.

    But I don't agree with the 'qualifiers' to get into the Senate.

  •  Yeah--wow cause Caroline Kennedy (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, alba, weebo, sethyeah, Rebecca74

    has never done anything but sit on her butt and eat bon bons.  She hasn't accomplished anything like the front pagers here!  

    Oh please. You people make her sound like she has done nothing with her life.  Would you all be frothing if her brother wanted to appointed to this seat?  

    "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." ~Mark Twain

    by PoliSigh on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:56:14 PM PST

  •  Paul Wellstone wasn't qualified (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vets74, alba, jogger, weebo, sethyeah

    I guess Paul Wellstone never should have never been a senator. He was a college professor and an activist.  Just not qualified!!

    •  Wellstone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Wellstone was elected to the Senate, not appointed. That is the WHOLE argument. The the public wants to elect someone without experience, that is their right. Appointing someone to office is a different matter.

      •  Really ???????????????????????????????? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        What's that ?

        Droogie is as Droogie does....

        by vets74 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:50:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And whoever is appointed here will not be elected (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alba, weebo

        But someone will be appointed. That is the WHOLE point.  I hear of no former Senator being mentioned in the discussion.  And you know that isn't a bad thing to me either. And I know you might say the appointment should be a sitting Congressman, but that isn't the same as a Senator either closer but not the same and that isn't bad to me either.

  •  The quality of your writing (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Feanor, AmericanRiverCanyon, alba, weebo

    has nothing to do with Ms Kennedy's qualifications.  She would have the same qualifications whether you were God's Anointed Writer-in-Chief or the worst hack to ever pen 'It was a dark and stormy night.'

    Likewise, the success of Ms Kennedy as a Senator has little to do with whether or not she has run a successful or unsuccessful campaign in the past.  Campaigning and legislating are two entirely different critters, and as many a Republican Senator aptly shows, you can campaign your way to a win, and then be a godawful Senator - and then keep getting re-elected for life.

    The antipathy to her being considered for a Senate seat by appointment, in the exact same way any other person will attain that seat, is thus simplistic at best.  Our current Senate shows that the election process as it stands most certainly does not give the seat to the better candidate, so to say that the best person for the seat is one who has, whether successfully or not, gone 'through the process' is ludicrous.

    Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

    by drbloodaxe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM PST

  •  I am so deeply impressed (7+ / 0-)

    with the meritorious selection of the talented writers of the front page diaries, who are picked because of their wonderful ideas and how well they express them, and because they are so much better than the lesser diary writers that I am going to take a long nap.


    by Gareth G on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM PST

  •  Why all the negativity toward Caroline? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weebo, sethyeah

    When George Bush stepped for the first time in the governor of Texas seat and the white house, qualifications and experience went out the window. When a majority of congress voted to invade Irag, the patriot act, FISA, and all the other spineless decisions "qualification and experience" went out the window. The only qualifications i am interested in, is that they have a spine.

  •  We who remember JFK feel we owe her (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Barth, alba

    Pictures of JFK with Caroline moved us and we feel protective of her. I remember Carol Burnett playing President Caroline Kennedy on the Garry Moore show. For those too young, I understand why you don't understand but she is more than a famous name. And that is a big political plus. So there needs to be a better reason to pass on her.

    •  It is not, for me, that we "owe" her (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but she and her family have earned a lot of respect.  Her father inspired many of us to public service, her uncle brought others into the cause of peace and decency in a very turbulent time.  Another uncle, still serving in the Senate, has stood up to the forces of the reactionary right when others would not dare and, had he been nominated in 1980 rather than the sitting President, we might not have had to go through the Reagan revolution.

      She has raised a family and contributed to thought about our Constitution and improving public education in New York City.  She can be expected to hold positions similar to those of the currently serving Senator Kennedy who, sadly, may not be around to keep the Senate honest in the decades to come.

      It is a free country and you can attack her if you want, but it is uncalled for in every respect.  From where I sit, if he does not appoint her, Gov Patterson will have to earn back my vote for him.

      More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

      by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:30:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've no strong feelings about Sen. Kennedy ... (8+ / 0-)

    ... either way, but am afraid you Front Pagers may pull a muscle patting yourselves on the back.

    Whatever. It's DKos and you're the kewl kids. Go ahead. Enjoy.

  •  To understand the usefulness of a good brand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in allowing someone to have an impact on the world, even if they adopt the brand well after its reputation is established, you don't exactly have to be a Philadelphia lawyer!

    Thanks for the link to Al's diary, Adam, and for the discussion of the Front Plebians.

  •  $.02: Where does she stand? (0+ / 0-)

    I have 2 visuals of Caroline:

    1. A sympathetic, saddened little girl standing behind John John at the eternal flame. (from the front page of the news papers i was delivering)
    1. An amazingly attractive 50 something  helping her Uncle Teddy on to the stage in support of my junior senator. (from any and every "news" service in the world...for weeks)

    So how does she feel about income inequity? "free" trade? et cetera, et cetera? (I want that from her, via news conference, not my benefit of the doubt.)

    The Cult of Personality cuts both ways, even on this site. I think the FPers are just asking the questions i want asked, while trying to hold back the tide of emotion i got from my 1) visualization.  

    Get to work slackers.....2016 is almost here.

    by geez53 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:13:37 PM PST

  •  You are confusing apples with Spain.... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Feanor, elbamash, vets74, alba, weebo, sethyeah

    Deciding which blogger to read is much easier than deciding who should serve in the Senate.  It costs next to nothing and you can read as many bloggers as you have the time and interest.

    Each state gets 2 US Senators.  The seat in question will be filled with someone who has to be elected 2 years from now, then again 2 years later.  The Democratic candidate will run against someone and only one of them will serve as of 1/3/11.

    I have not seen as many "how dare yous"---we understand why you dare, and why you attack---but the degree of hostility to Ms. Kennedy, and the accusations of dynasty which are rarely raised about other candidates (just how many Udalls do we support, btw), is surprising to me except when I consider the antipathy many of you show toward the icons who seem important tho those of us born in from about the late 1940s into the early 1970s.

    All I can say is that the rich dilettante with the famous last name who was derisively called "feather Duster Roosevelt" did okay by the country, as did the young Congressman whose father was once Ambassador to the Court of St James interviewed on MTP late in 1951.

    More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

    by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:16:20 PM PST

    •  Bravo for content, and # of words/sentences. (0+ / 0-)
    •  the Udalls ran this time ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... and each of then ran several times before.

    •  And the "dynasty" argument falls flat, too. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      klamothe, alba, weebo, sethyeah

      Its her father -- JFK -- who weighs so heavily in this mix.

      He has been gone for a long time.

      What the JFK memory gets her, is no more than a good look from the likes of Barack Obama.

      So then -- after such a look -- Obama asked her to help pick his VP.

      Damn. He'd never ask me for anything. Much less anything like that. Maybe directions to a restroom.... ;^)


      Droogie is as Droogie does....

      by vets74 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:56:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Her father still means a lot to many of us... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...and the impact of her uncle Robert on the politics of this state, over the not quite 4 years he both ran for and served in the Senate still resonates.

        BTW:  As to the Udall family, I have nothing but the highest praise.  Mo Udall was my candidate in 1976 and would have been a great president.  He, his brother Stewart and the rest of their family, have made outstanding contributions to our country which I treasure, as I do those of the Kennedy family.

        More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

        by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:02:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Was this an anti-Caroline, or pro-Caroline diary? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollyusa, alba, weebo, sethyeah

    Because you really confused me with all the names of politicians who actually had to campaign for their seat.
    You see, who ever get Hillary's seat will not be campaigning for it. It will be given to him or her.
    Therefore, why not Caroline or Cuomo, or me?
    Perhaps you are advocating against the vacancy appointment rule.
    If so, OK then.

  •  Talk about an ego trip. (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Feanor, srkp23, philimus, Mash, weebo, sethyeah

    The frontpage has seen a lot better than this post.

    It's going to be a landslide. PERIOD.

    by boriquasi on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:17:16 PM PST

  •  Adam B lost me here (9+ / 0-)

    the front-pagers at DailyKos, and the thing that everyone here has in common is that they earned their spots here.

    Either that, or for some quirky reason, Markos likes them. I have no problem with that. There is too much offered by those who make this place worthwhile to be terribly bothered by those on the easily ignored Front Page.

    It's the attitude, dude. Entitlement. How very - um - Kennedy-esque.

    Gen. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Excellent. Now hire for Sec. of Humanity, Decency, and Civility: noweasels

    by llbear on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM PST

  •  Who has earned it? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sagebrush Bob, RDemocrat, weebo, sethyeah

    All your complaints seem to be about the appointment process itself. It's an inherently un-meritocratic system. Blaming CK for engaging in this process seems a little ridiculous. There is no election to be had. By expressing interest in the seat, she's doing as much campaigning as she can.

    So who is the great unheard of no-name we should be rallying behind? Name one person who deserves to be Senator from New York instead of CK and we can actually start having a discussion about who should be the next Senator from NY. Because this whole discussion shouldn't be Caroline-centric. Debating whether or not Caroline Kennedy deserves the seat is really stupid and boring in a vacuum. It's a great discussion to have in the context of weighing her qualifications against another candidate's. But until the anti-CK come up with a viable alternative, this whole discussion is nothing but wankery.

    Congratulations, you're an awesome no-name blogger and we all love you because you're so good at what you do... and rich-kids are pricks.

    Point taken.

    Now about that Senate seat in New York. Got any suggestions?

    •  Velazquez, Serrano, Schwarz, the upstate folks.nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  You prefer pols. That's fine. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, pollyusa, alba, RDemocrat, weebo

        I am comfortable with someone with another background.

        More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

        by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Schwarz isn't a pol. NT (0+ / 0-)
          •  who is he or she? (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

            by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  F.A.O. "Fritz" Scharz Jr. (0+ / 0-)

              Fellow member of the NAACP LDF board, also born with a famous name, did a lot more with it.

              •  right, and former Corporation Counsel (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                srkp23, RDemocrat, weebo

                meaning chief lawyer of the City of New York.  BTW:  you don't think that his family's famous Fifth Avenue store did not have anything to with his tneure in city government.

                I am not against him, nor, really Jose Serrano or Nydia Velasquez, but I do not see how any of them bring as much to the table as does Caroline Kennedy.

                (Serrano is so politically connected to the party apparatus that Caroline's uncle Robert fought against so hard that to bring him up as an alternative to her makes me shake my head in sadness over what these 41 years have done to the reform movement in this state.)

                More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

                by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm saying ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ... given his name, he could've just sold Barbie dolls all his life.  Look at how much he did instead -- he authored the Church Commission's report as well. He's also written a few books, including ...

                  Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror

                  PW: "Though another book criticizing the Bush presidency is of questionable necessity, Schwarz (Nigeria: The Tribes, the Nation, or the Race) and first-time author Huq, both of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, offer a clear look at what history has to say regarding controversial decisions made by the current administration. Covering "what went wrong," "why untrammeled executive power" is bad for America and what can be done "to reestablish the checks and balances that define our government," this call for transparency and accountability has a satisfying reach and focus. The first section traces abuse of presidential power throughout the Cold War, particularly in regard to intelligence communities. The second section demonstrates how efforts to correct that abuse were tragically reversed following 9/11, resulting in an executive branch that enacts policies of questionable legality in the name of fighting terrorists. The third section takes those policies to task, holding them up to the light of the Constitution, but ultimately just keeps hitting the same note. The authors' conclusion doesn't propose much of a plan for saving the republic, but the essential ingredient-citizens who demand more oversight, less obfuscation and greater access to information-should get a smart, historically adept kickstart here. "

                  •  I have nothing against him at all (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    npb7768, alba

                    It's just that Caroline Kennedy is interested in serving in the Senate, is certainly qualified to do so and will be able to carry on her Uncle Ted's work which is very important.

                    She is also a symbol of what a young vibrant president could inspire, and what her Uncle Robert meant to many as well.  As we inaugurate another young vibrant president, her appointment sends a message that, as her father said, "can truly light the world"

                    More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

                    by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And that's what I feel like her supporters miss (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      There's a large generation of people who just don't feel and aren't persuaded by the torch-carrying thing.  To us, it's someone else's nostalgia.

                      •  I just don't get this.... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        npb7768, alba

                        FDR was dead almost seven years when I was born, yet his leadership and inspiration moves me.  President Wilson's dream of a world at peace and international organizations working together for mankind remains my dream, though I missed his presidency by about four decades.

                        and so on and so forth.

                        You know, teach your children....

                        (Oh, right, you don't know:  Crosby, Stills and Nash)

                        More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

                        by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:57:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  and what evidence do you have that a person with (0+ / 0-)

                    that background would make a good senator????

                    •  Plenty. (0+ / 0-)

                      He's got U.S. Senate experience, executive director experience, and a demonstrated track record of fighting for civil liberties and constitutional governance -- i.e., everything you claim Kennedy has.

            •  someone who is NOT a candidate for the Senate (0+ / 0-)


      •  What's so great bout the upstate folks? (0+ / 0-)

        My point is, who can keep the senate seat the longest. Who's the best at raising $$$, and who will be best at backing Obama's plans?
        This Hossier thinks Caroline will do just fine.

        •  esp since they don't usually elect Democrats (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Congresswoman Gillibrand (who is supposedly in the mix) and Congressman Arcuri (who is not) got elected largely die to antipathy toward GW Bush who will (sadly for this reason only) not be around much longer to help them get elected.  As incumbents they are probably okay, though Republicans will not vote for Democrats forever, but as US Senators they have no base to run for re-election.

          More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

          by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bruno (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            could prolly use a new bully pulpit ;)

            Ah, those upstaters...

            Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

            by drbloodaxe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is funny.... (0+ / 0-)

     many people who know nothing about our state have such strong views about who should represent us in the US Senate.

              We have quite a history in this state and maybe those who want to throw names around should read up on it.

              More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

              by Barth on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:57:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, it's not (0+ / 0-)

                my state.  But my housemate is from Renssalaer (spelling?) county, and is a font of NY knowledge, especially on upstate Republican behaviours, and still has the local paper delivered to her here in Ohio.  Her parents are die-hard old school Republicans, but very decent folks overall.

                Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

                by drbloodaxe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:03:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I'm a Caroline backer as well, but... (0+ / 0-)

          don't go asking "what's so great about Upstate folks?" to taunt and belittle.

          Upstate makes up over 90% of the land mass of NYS, yet its like the forgotten land. Representation is lousy and Upstaters have seen very little relief in the way of infrastructure maintenance, business aid and poverty relief.

          Granted, I get back there not so often these days (I live overseas), but I consider myself an Upstate refuge. Unemployment in my county is very high, my once proud hometown is turning into a ghost town - half the size when I was born as when my parents grew up there, continuing to shrink. All the major manufacturing businesses have left, most commute to Schenectady's GE offices which are also leaving that descimated city. Crime continues to rise more and more each year in number and seriousness.

          Upstate is desperately in need of attention and neither Schumer, nor Clinton have been any help.

      •  Pick one (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, Adam B, weebo

        Are you suggesting representation by committee? See Caroline is a lot better at this game than you. She knows Patterson only gets to pick one person. So she suggests one person: herself. You respond first with nothing but a bunch of Very Good Reasons You Thought Up Yourself, and then a list that included "The Upstate Folks" which I assume is some kind of jam band or something?

        Pretend your Patterson. Make a decision and say why you did it.

        The longer you float around in maybe-this-guy-or-what-about-this-other-lady-land the easier it is for Caroline to bull her way into the seat.

  •  On the other hand.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alba, weebo, sethyeah

    ... rarely have I seen esteemed bloggers look for even the most mundane and inconsequential reasons to bag on an ally and potential Democratic candidate for Senator than I have in the Case of Mrs. Schlossberg.  (The "story" about her record of participation in elections comes immediately to mind.)

    So some are really offended by the "entitlement" stance - I get it, and I don't blame them one bit.  Given the alternatives, I'm not as bothered by it in this case, but whatever.  If that is your objection, stick to that.  If you have something SUBSTANTIAL to add to that conversation, bully for you.  I'm all eyes.  But don't come with some weak and childish "oh yeah, and she also didn't vote in 1996!"  Of all the "issues" we face, it isn't that this one is low down on the list - it is NOWHERE on the list!

    Thank you for listening.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- A. Lincoln

    by Deighved H Stern MD on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM PST

  •  And THIS Merits a Front Page Diatribe? (8+ / 0-)

    This pettiness is getting way old.  

    Clinton's replacement is important enough, but why the hell do we have to always eat our own?


  •  So we might as well have a blogger (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemFromCT, BenGoshi, weebo

    from Daily Kos appointed to the seat?

    Now if the blogger happens to be someone like Meteor Blades, I could actually get behind the idea. ;)

    "A country that doesn't make anything doesn't need a financial sector as there is nothing to finance." Paul Craig Roberts

    by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM PST

  •  This wouldn't even be an issue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alba, weebo, sethyeah

    if Obama had chosen a Secretary of State that had the common sense to oppose authorizing the use of force in Iraq without evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

    "A country that doesn't make anything doesn't need a financial sector as there is nothing to finance." Paul Craig Roberts

    by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM PST

  •  When I Think of American Democracy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, sunshineonthebay

    I always think it's what you are, not who you are.

    Among some of us -- probably me included -- Ms Kennedy possesses "who" in such excess that it may obscure her "what."  On the other hand she may be well garlanded with :who" and be bereft of substantive "what."

    The election process -- campaigning, organizing, messaging -- usually helps us discern the presence of "what" in any "who" who runs.

    Ms Kennedy could try being a candidate before offering herself as an appointee so that we can tell what she's made of, rather than merely who she's named of.  

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:44:56 PM PST

    •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The election process brought us W, Cheney, Delay, Cunningham, McConnell, Boehner, and on and on and on.

      And the logic here seems to be 'she's never run, so she's unworthy.'  Which ignores the fact that if she'd run the worst stinkeroo of a campaign ever, she would then, by the logic being given us, suddenly be worthy.

      Ralph Nader ran many times for office, yet I don't see him being posited for this seat merely because he's run a number of campaigns.

      If you don't like appointments at all, that's fine.  But this is like cherrypicking one specific thing a candidate you don't like has done and proclaiming that makes them inadequate.

      Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

      by drbloodaxe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:53:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There's no claim that Ms. Kennedy is "inadequate."

        There is an affirmation that having been elected to office prior to applying for it is preferential in the traditional way we go about democracy in this country.  Especially when the qualifications she offers do not exceed -- do they even meet? -- those of other possible choices for the vacant senate seat.

        They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

        by Limelite on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The democratic process has produced some very (0+ / 0-)

      sorry "whats."

  •  You have your opinion and I have mine (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, alba, weebo, sethyeah

    Why is it that we see so many diaries here where people are SHOCKED that someone can disagree with them. Especially when that person has such perfect arguments that are so utterly incontrovertible. I don’t get it. Sometimes it seems that this site does not broker dissent very well.

    Anyway - the fact of the matter is that Governor Paterson can appoint ANYONE he wants. Maybe this is a great opportunity to give a non-politician a chance. Anyone the governor appoints will have to run for election TWICE to keep the seat for a full term. The voters will have plenty of opportunities to pick someone else if she does not do a good job. I happen to think she will do great, but that is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

  •  I think what happened is that (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, alba, weebo, sethyeah

    the criticism was really excessive and parts were downright unfair, such as passing on the NYT line that Kennedy was somehow Palin-ish.  It was too much.

    America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this. - President Obama

    by GN1927 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:48:15 PM PST

  •  Caroline (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollyusa, alba, terry2wa, weebo

    I'm not from New York, so my views don't really count. But I think Caroline has the possibility of being a very good Senator. If she is appointed, she has 2 years to prove herself and win the citizens of New York over for the 2010 election. I hope she is given the opportunity to walk in John, Robert, and Edward's footsteps.

    "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." FDR

    by Robin7459 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM PST

    •  And I Just Hope That Kos' Children, Should They (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi, alba, weebo

      Opt for public service some day, won't find themselves immediately dismissed as the dilettante scions of a political celebrity.

      Quite frankly, I think Kos himself has been quite unnecessarily rude in some of his dismissals of Ms. Schlossberg.  But at least he hasn't indulged in a three-day pity party about how "religion done ruined my life"...To those brothers and sisters, I say, TAKE A GODDAMN TICKET AND STAND IN LINE!  

      Christmas Week around here is a real hoot.

      And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

      by terry2wa on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:18:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why so much VITRIOL to Carolyn (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, pollyusa, alba, weebo

    My guess is that Carolyn Kennedy would be a more progressive candidate than a lot of the others who might be appointed to this position. See this article on that point:

    Hillary Clinton would never have been senator or a presidential candidate but for Bill, W would never have been president but for Bush pere, Andrew Cuomo would have never reached where he is but for Mario, David Paterson would have never become Lt. Governor but for Harlem mover and shaker daddy Basil. This rage against aristocracy seems particulary harsh and emotional when it comes to Carolyn.

    Carolyn is no Sarah Palin. She's got a law degree, has written a number of books, and has supported the right causes.

    But beyond that, who in New York would be superior to her? Suggest someone better for this appointment. Don't just rant against Carolyn Kennedy.

    •  then why is she campaigning like Sarah Palin (0+ / 0-)

      she has yet to address the voters.  she is meeting with insiders.  let her get elected in 2010.  until then - anybody else who has gone before the voters.

      your guess is she'd be progressive.  GUESS???  wtf?  based on what?  it's pathetic.  this should make any decent dem (every kennedy lovining dem) completely pissed off.

  •  About As Egalitarian As Robespierre...IMO. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, alba

    I am quite concerned about the issues which factions of this community has chosen to flex is newly-presumed muscle.  The GLBT faction, apparently, has decided that they are going to force us into a crusade against the Evangelicals, and Kos has decided to throw down the gauntlet with the Kennedys.

    They're both wrong-headed decisions, IMO, which will erode the prestige and authority of this community.  And I think both causes are self-serving for the persons involved, jousting more at symbols than at substance.

    That's my egalitarian opinion and I'm sticking with it.

    And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

    by terry2wa on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:11:10 PM PST

    •  Should Read "Faction HAVE Chosen" (0+ / 0-)

      I hate making grammatical mistakes. It ruins the rhythm of a good rant.

      And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

      by terry2wa on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:37:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Factions Have Chosen", Of Course... (0+ / 0-)

        Third time's a charm, particularly in the matter of subject/verb agreement.

        And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

        by terry2wa on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:44:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Petty jealousy (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, Mash, alba, weebo

    is what's going on hear. So Caroline Kennedy "is not qualified and does not have enough experience". BULL! There is nothing that says experience has to come from the floor of the senate. She can get qualification and experience in one freaking day with uncle Ted. The kind of experience i like. Some people would have us think, even though she's been a part of this highly political family all her life and gained nothing.

  •  It looks like Patterson is going to appoint (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, pollyusa, Fabian, alba, sethyeah

    Israel instead. Israel is significantly more conservative than Clinton and Kennedy.  Good job guys.  

  •  Heaven forbid Kos or Adam B really consider... (7+ / 0-)

    (a) how she would vote and (b) whether she'd be advocate for progressive issues as a U.S. Senator.

    God knows we don't really want that kind of analysis or discussion.


    "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

    by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:53:52 PM PST

    •  I want that discussion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We barely have any facts to use in it.

      •  Well Mr. Insightful, Political, New Generation (7+ / 0-)


         Kos doesn't even seem to want that conversation, which appears to separate the two of you.

         Kos looks to be freaking out over the icing and ignoring the cake.  

         By way of example, I'd rather see a company CEO who's a "legacy" (granddaddy founded it, daddy ran it for 40 years) run a company in a socially and environmentally responsible way, who takes care of his employees and works to put as much into his community as he takes out of it, than see a CEO who's "worked his way up" the ladder and who doesn't give a damn about complying with best practices for mitigating pollution, who ignores or flouts employment anti-discrimination laws, who behaves like an ass to/in/around his community, etc., etc.

        It'd be nice if all the "self-made" people were "good guys" and all the wealthy were like, say, George W. Bush.  Conclusions about people would be much easier to reach that way.  I kind of think it does trend that way, but it's certainly not a rule without its exceptions.  

        Kos seems to either not "get" that, or care to try and get.  Which, again, is certainly his right.  I and others who are more or less ambivalent about the thing are, I think, entitled to make note of this.


        "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

        by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:26:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately ... (0+ / 0-)

          .... it seems to be requiring this kind of pressure to get the answers to which citizens are entitled.  It wasn't under Saturday, after all, that we received written answers to questions posed to Kennedy by the NYT, and Buffalo News.  Before that, we really had nothing.

          •  Well, her life, education, experience, etc., etc. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, pollyusa, weebo, sethyeah

             . . . is a pretty freakin' open book.  She's not a mysterious, unknown quantity to anybody who takes the time to take a look.  Can Kos use the google?

            I mean, if he truly disagrees with some particular policy or position or professional experience of hers, then fine.  But you and I both know -- he's TOLD me -- that he just doesn't like her goddam name and what he considers her lack of having "earned" a position in the U.S. Senate.  


            "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

            by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:49:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's an open book without much writing (0+ / 0-)

              I mean, really, she's co-authored a book on the right to privacy and no one can answer how she looks at FISA.  Or how she'll view trade deals.  Etc.

              I can't disagree with some particular policy or position of hers because I still don't know what they are.

              •  I don't think you're trying hard enough. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, pollyusa, alba, weebo, sethyeah

                She's simply not the cipher you and Kos make her out to be.  I hate to use the word "concern", and with you I won't.  But the founder of this site and self-appointed concern troll vigilante might want to go back and do a little soul-searching.  I doubt he will.  It's not his way.  Just my opinion.


                "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  How does she feel about FISA? nt (0+ / 0-)
                  •  How does Obama feel about FISA?! (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    askew, pollyusa, alba, sethyeah

                    Now you are just being a contrarian concern troll for the sake of being a contrarian concern troll.

                    Obama and about 30-40 other Democratic Senators (back when he was a Senator) has/have been pretty fucking wishy-washy and ambivalent and inconsistent about FISA.  How does Obama feel about gay rights?  According to a great deal of the gay community, he's stabbing them in the back.  I don't necessarily buy that, but that's beside the point:  NO Democratic politician is "pure".  But you and Kos seem to want to apply a concern/purity troll standard to Kennedy that I can't recall you applying to any other Democrat.

                    Do you support Jim Webb?  Is he pure enough on every issue for you?

                    Are you glad Joe Biden is going to be Vice President?  Why didn't you support him for President, if he's so great?  Is he pure enough to pass your concernometer?  Why or why not?

                    You're now just throwing shit up against the wall and hoping some of it will stick against Kennedy.  I really didn't care one way or the other.  Now, over the past 48 hours or so, I'm really beginning to support her, just because I'm sickened seeing people try to tear her down with purity/strawman/b.s. arguments for the sake of whatever weird-ass internal demons are motivating you/Kos to obsess in this way.

                    God help us all if she actually gets the nod:, will you and Kos dog and concern troll this woman for the next two years with the same tenacity that you are now?

                    Now it appears more and more like it's your pride and ego talking:  you've staked-out your position and, by damn, you feel like you can't move from it.  How strange it would be if Kennedy goes to the Senate and the good people of New York like her and the job she does.  Whatever will you and Kos do with yourselves?


                    "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                    by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:17:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If she does a good job, I'll be thrilled. (0+ / 0-)

                      But you didn't answer the question because you can't yet, and it's one we all asked of every Presidential, Senate and House candidate seeking our support this past year.

                    •  It's not about purity. (0+ / 0-)

                      It's about having information, period.  We don't have enough to compare the candidates yet.

                      •  Uh, yes it is. (0+ / 0-)


                        Kos wants her to be "pure" in the sense that only workin' stiffs who claw their way to the top are worthy of a Senate seat; whereas a person born into privilege has no business in the U.S. Senate as their first elected position -- to hell with who they are, what their life's history is, where their heart is, whether (as in the present case) they'd support the (Democratic) President, how they'd be likely to vote . . . you know, all that irrelevant stuff.  Oh, and the Concern Monger -- who takes pride in their insight, and acumen, and ability to distill and glean truths from broad data points -- is also obligated to act all, "Well, gosh, I just don't know enough about this person..."  Rolls eyes.

                        You, I now certainly realize, are playing the Concern Troll card:  "Well, we don't know exactly where she stands on FISA, so we're very troubled and concerned . . ." blah, blah, useless blah.



                        "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                        by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:15:17 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  then you're not reading in good faith (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          Go back to my original essay: when I learn more about how she'll be likely to vote -- esp. on those issues which tend to divide Democrats -- I can be much more open to supporting her.  I meant it.

                          •  I appreciate your calm and sober reply and (0+ / 0-)

                            thank you for it.  

                            I see nothing in any of your comments, though, wherein you address the various matters (of concern trollism, playing dumb, double standards, purity trollism, etc.) that I and others have raised here -- both above and below this particular comment thread.

                            But, again, I applaud you (sincerely) for your tone, even if I disagree with what you're saying (or not saying).


                            "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                            by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:01:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because I regard that as name-calling (0+ / 0-)

                            And I can't get into all the am-not, are-too stuff as such.  The main thing that I can rely on in demonstrating my good faith here is the fact that I've been around a while and (hopefully) have a decent track record and reputation by now.

  •  If Patterson pick someone to the right of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, sethyeah

    Caroline Kennedy, you can blame a large part of that decision, on some of my emotional and constantly whining and bitching liberal colleages. A whole lot of that has been going on recently. A lot of it! You protest too much! We are not there yet and we want get there with all this emotional shit!

  •  ADAM B - great POST**** (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, klamothe

    thanks for having common sense - i don't begrudge name or any built in advantage but giving a senatorship to a person who never gave a public speech to the voters of NEW YORK is completely insane!!!!!

  •  I have no problem with people opposing her (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, pollyusa, mmt006, alba, jogger, weebo

    my problem is with a lot of the hypocrisy surrounding it, such as applying a different standard to Caroline than to "Shuck and Jive" Cuomo or hurling sexist remarks at Caroline after a season of hunting down supposedly sexist remarks about Sen. Clinton (see Hamsher, Jane).

    Oppose her all you want, just do it on the basis of something besides her last name and all of the other bullshit that's been thrown at her...

    "If you are the big tree, we are the small axe"

    by peaceandprogress on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM PST

  •  Two requests (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, alba, weebo

    (1) Define "earn" in the context of a Senate seat.

    (2) Explain, in noncircular fashion, why it is desirable, in general, that satisfaction of that definition be made a primary qualifying criterion for an appointive Senate seat (e.g., why insistence on the criterion is good public policy, helpful to progressive causes, or conducive to some other good).

    "Explanations come to an end somewhere." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

    by The Secret Sharer on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:56:19 PM PST

  •  Most of the "how dare you?" (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, alba, weebo, sethyeah

    Has come from the front page.  As in "how dare Patterson appoint Kennedy?"  I don't recall similar "how dare you?" sentiment expressed when other New York political figures were under consideration.  None of them were particularly compelling and Kennedy is easily more compelling than several of them, if only for her support for same-sex marriage.  So what's up?

    I'm sure the front page posters have rejected any suggestion that they have another preference, but really, I don't buy that any of this outrage is motivated by high-minded concerns about meritocracy or democracy.

    I prefer a special election, and I don't see why that's any less possible in New York than in Illinois - the incoming state legislature is Democratic, and I suspect they could as easily change the law as Illinois.  So why not demand that?

  •  I Read This Diary as a Positive Step (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, roberta g, weebo

    Adam B - Thank you for your statement that while your initial instincts regarding a Senator Caroline Kennedy are skeptical you're open to being convinced.

    I think that's all we can ask.

    And I, for one, appreciate the different tone that this diary has compared with some other front-paged ones of recent fame.

    Part of the challenge here is for us commenters and diarists to learn better to walk and chew gum at the same time. That is to say, to distinguish between the issues at hand.

    For example, if the process set forth for the Governor appointing the next Senator makes one angry, it's ridiculous to then project that anger on Caroline Kennedy or any other aspirant. They didn't make those rules and can't be held responsible for them merely because they follow them.

    That is: "Walk" (figure out one's position on how senate vacancies should be filled) and "Chew Gum" (figure out the different issue of who one wants to fill that seat). There could be more of that, around here and elsewhere.

    Secondly, since I posted that diary yesterday (and thanks for linking to it), this came across my vista: A Caroline Kennedy for US Senate Facebook Page. It now has 1,362 members. Anybody so inclined can join.

    Likewise, anybody inclined to a different appointee or candidate, can form their own such page.

    In sum, Adam, I accept your challenge, and urge others to do the same. We have a full month still to convince Adam B and any other Kossacks, including the DKos diarist named David Paterson.

    •  I started off with the same take on this as you.. (0+ / 0-)

      . . . but found over the course of the give-and-take of the Comments that, at least on this matter, the story's author is just as much a stubborn and contrarian concern troll as the Big K himself.


      "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

      by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:55:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  P.S. - He's not going to be convinced. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He's staked-out his position and is hanging on to it with a death-grip.  I see nothing in the comments where he wants to be convinced.  Just the opposite.  Which is a shame.


      "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

      by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:57:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  P.P.S. -- Credit due to Adam, however. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I've got to conceded, however, that while Adam's position and stubbornness are maddening, he writes and dialogs with a much more respectful and respectable tone than, say, Markos or another Front Pager about whom many of us know, and who has a well-earned reputation for petulance.  Adam's not like that, to his credit.


        "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

        by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:10:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  677 comments here (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, pollyusa, RDemocrat, weebo, sethyeah

    with the same pro and anti Caroline Kennedy arguments as in the 500 comments in the front page story yesterday, and the 500 comments in the front page story the day before that, and the 500 comments in the front page story the day before that.

    I suppose ct can use all this to stress-test the database or something.

    Now, how about a real story on New York politics?

    •  I sort of agree with you, but am glad... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      we're seeing this Concern Troll side of another Front Pager.  It gives us insight into what makes some of these people tick.  And, it helps lurkers and "regular" bloggers/comments-only people stay "grounded" in knowing and being reminded that Markos and some of his favorite people don't have a monopoly on insight or what makes a Good Democrat.

      There's a value to that.


      "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

      by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:52:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  HOW DARE US?! (7+ / 0-)

    The only argument here has to do with CK's name.  You all don't seem to want to hear nor care about where she stands on the issues.  She seems pretty progressive to me on most issues so far, so what is it you people keep going on about?  You all had to work so hard to get where you are today.  Who hasn't? But if New York likes a big name senator, and the state has a history of big name senators, they could do much worse than Caroline Kennedy.  

    God help us that she hasn't run a campaign or come up through the machinery of New York Dem politics because that's how New York got  Schumer, and Connecticut got Lieberman, and that sorry list could go on and on.

    The powers that be at Kos seem to be having a problem with it's readers talking back and disagreeing with the over-wrought skepticism (see CK voting record posting) pushed on the front pages here.

    You guys don't get it.  The "How Dare You" attitude is coming from you to us for questioning your judgement on this one.  So you can wait and see, while others of us are a lot less bothered by the idea of this particular appointment.

  •  HOW DOES IT FEEL (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, alba, weebo, sethyeah

    now that you are officially a concern troll?

    "Change is one thing, progress is another." - Bertrand Russell

    by MemphisBryan on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM PST

  •  Again... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, pollyusa, alba, weebo

    I beg to question who is more qualified to be nominated to serve the last two years, and will have a chance to raise the funds and have the name recognition to win the seat again in two years?? I keep hearing reasons why CK should not get the seat, and no reason why anyone else should.

    Where was all this questioning of CK by many frontpagers when she was endorsing Obama in the primary?? It was simply a love-fest then!! Why turn your guns on her now??

    What disturbs me most is that many people within our party seem to shun this woman BECAUSE her name is Kennedy, and not because of her qualifications. I think they may be a little jealous of the name, and threatened by it.

  •  You sound like you are sucking up to Markos (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, BenGoshi, alba, sethyeah

    I think Caroline Kennedy would be just fine. She's not going to suck up to Markos or anybody else. She has heart. She stuck by her brother. Her father got his head blown off but she's not afraid to step up into the same path he took. You know why? Because she is an authentic died-in-the-wool Democrat. Get used to it.

  •  Hey I'm not defensive, in fact I'm enjoying Kos' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    fetish re: Caroline. It's entertaining at the very least.

    It all boils down to who Patterson wants to run w/in 2010. Kennedy who can help Patterson raise a lot of money or Cuomo or the rest of the pack, most of which are unknowns ...

    take care, blessings

    When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to pause and reflect! ~ Mark Twain

    by shiloh on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:58:05 PM PST

  •  Into the Flood of Comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Well, as someone born to no name of any consequence, I'm not in the mood to hand anyone a plum political appointment without some evidence that they earned it. But what bothers me about Markos and others who have questioned Carolyn Kennedy's bona fides is that the opposition seems to have come without any examination of her merits.

    We just came through eight years of complete disregard for the Constitution and human rights. To immediately dismiss someone who wrote two books on Constitutional rights seems to me to have widely missed the point. Regardless of any other qualifications, I think that we might well profit as a nation from someone with this point of view in Congress.

    As near as I can tell, most members of Congress have never seen a copy of the Constitution, much less read one. Cheney (bless his [black] heart) recently completely misquoted the oath of office after almost eight full years on the job. He somehow thought it had to do with protecting the country. (Which it does, tangentially, in the sense that protecting the Constitution is the essence of protecting the country, because without it we'd be just a bag of people and a sundry of locations.) Too bad he didn't get it in his head right. If he'd been as fierce a defender of the Constitution as he has been of executive power, we'd have seen the dawn of a new age. (Or, at least the government wouldn't have missed it.)

    So, my recommendation would be to provide a little running room for Ms. Kennedy so that we can evaluate her on the issues. Based just on her work, I'm inclined to think she would make a fine Senator. At least let her bobble an interview with Katie Couric before throwing up your hands and pronouncing her candidacy DOA.

    •  They're all Concern Troll about her. Ironic. (3+ / 0-)


      And playing dumb, as if she's an utter, unknown and unknowable cipher.  I'm almost embarrassed for them.

      As for the "plum of privilege" vs. "workin' stiff who clawed their way up" bona fides, I hear and agree with you.  Here's a little more of a detailed take (of mine) on this (also set forth above and in an earlier comment in another story):

         By way of example, I'd rather see a company CEO who's a "legacy" (granddaddy founded it, daddy ran it for 40 years) run a company in a socially and environmentally responsible way, who takes care of his employees and works to put as much into his community as he takes out of it, than see a CEO who's "worked his way up" the ladder but who doesn't give a damn about complying with best practices for mitigating pollution, who ignores or flouts employment anti-discrimination laws, who behaves like an ass to/in/around his community, etc., etc.

         It'd be nice if all the "self-made" people were "good guys" and all the wealthy were like, say, George W. Bush.  Conclusions about people would be much easier to reach that way.  I kind of think it does trend that way, but it's certainly not a rule without its exceptions.



      "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

      by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:37:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Appointed vs elected (4+ / 0-)

    I'm sure you and all the other front pagers were selected because you were the best of all possible bloggers. However, I unless I missed it, I believe you were appointed to your position by the head of the site and were not elected by its members

  •  Re: Your questioning her toughness or the... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, jogger, sethyeah

    "...toughness in her life experience...", I assume you'll be expressing the same concern about any male candidate who will be considered for this Senatorial appointment? I would be as tough as old shoe leather if I had been through what she has--all of the curious premature deaths in her immediate family. But, granted, those aren't necessarily qualifying experiences. Surely, if Basketball star Bill Bradley and Comedian Al Franken are qualified to be Senators, so is Caroline Kennedy--she even has a law degree from Columbia. What am I missing here?  

    "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

    by Morpheus Dreamer on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:30:34 AM PST

  •  Well, points to the Diarist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for sticking in here and trying to answer all the criticisms leveled at him in a civil manner (including mine). That's hard to do without losing your temper.

  •  Caroline Kennedy (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a bit of history from a octogenarian.  Both parties wanted General Eisenhower to run on their ticket for president.  No one knew whether he was a Democrat or a Republican, because no one could find that he had ever registered to vote.  

    So lighten up about whether Caroline Kennedy consistently voted or whether she is qualified. Pres. Eisenhower had no previous preparation or interest and he managed alright.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site